I suppose it is, at least in comparison with, say, 7 or 1, or especially 8. Still, it's not easy to keep focused on your next task when every four steps is a random encounter.
@joyd: I really enjoy K's nitpicks. Often they're just a literalization of something that should be let go, but he also has some very interesting observations about system and setting.
Also, material components are idiotic, assinine, and inconvenient. Let's hope 4e drops them altogether.
@ether: I also really liked to be able to shuffle the party. Edward finally got to be the powerful character I always wanted him to be. There are, however, a lot of party configurations I wanted to try out that didn't include Cecil.
@mam & photon: thanks for the thorough and convincing explanation of why mind thrust sucks.
@ photon: While the monk does get some interesting non-combat abilities, the soulknife's class abilities [if I remember correctly] are all focused on making his swords better; and that's fine for weapon power/versatility. But where are the actual [non-corrective] class features? In the same way, many of the monk's powers aren't treated as merely correcting for the lack of weapons. Not only is there something wierd about a +4 shocking quartetstaff, there's something extremely awkward about vorpal shuriken. Also, a fighter can use pretty much any weapon bought or found - not a monk.
Although I get the idea that the monk is actually supposed to replace the rogue, not the fighter, given how the 4e designers were talking at gencon. Speaking of 4e, I look forward to the promise of easier party modulation. Finally we'll see a party with a non-cleric healer. No more of this "this special class works well as a backup caster/healer/striker/tank." I'm sick of classes that are only recommended as the fifth party member.
Also, 3.5 is just too complicated. The game needs to be a little more out-of-the-box friendly. Noone is going to stop anyone from introducing extra options and complexity, but there is nothing added to the game by fast healing that regeneration doesn't cover fine.
Also, material components are idiotic, assinine, and inconvenient. Let's hope 4e drops them altogether.
Yeah, I think we might actually be able to agree on that.
@mam & photon: thanks for the thorough and convincing explanation of why mind thrust sucks.
It doesn't suck, to be fair, it just isn't very good.
@ photon: While the monk does get some interesting non-combat abilities, the soulknife's class abilities [if I remember correctly] are all focused on making his swords better; and that's fine for weapon power/versatility. But where are the actual [non-corrective] class features?
To be fair, I did say that I agreed that the soulknife was lacking in class features. But let me ask YOU a question then- where are the fighter's class features?
Also, the soulknife gets psychic strike, which is a little like sneak attack. Not much, granted, but it extends beyond just "making their swords better".
@joyd: I really enjoy K's nitpicks. Often they're just a literalization of something that should be let go, but he also has some very interesting observations about system and setting.
I sort of have a love/hate relationship with those sort of nagging insights. A lot of the time they can be very funny and can point out a lot of loopholes and design flaws that can be addressed, but after a certain point you just want to tell the person making them to shut up and go play something else. I mean, it's fine to an extent, but when it comes to the point where a person does NOTHING but complain about the game, you sort of have to ask why they insist on playing it any further and ruining it for everyone else.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[16:23] Alacar Leoricar: maybe if you do it'll make the porn more meaningful
I agree about the nitpicks. They're fun from a certain perspective, but in the end, it's a game, for cryin' out loud.
I forgot about the psychic strikes, which is actually interesting. And you make an excellent point about the fighter [and why I'd never play one]. Fighters are pretty featureless. they're supposed to be a build your own beatstick thing, but the feats aren't enough to give them the pizazz they so need.
In the same way, many of the monk's powers aren't treated as merely correcting for the lack of weapons.
I'm sorry if this seems ignorant, but what? I really do not understand this comment.
Not only is there something wierd about a +4 shocking quartetstaff
Yeah, this would be a sheerly personal issue with it, and not really a mechanical flaw, though.
Also, a fighter can use pretty much any weapon bought or found - not a monk.
Yes, but the fighter also doesn't get a variety of other class features. They aren't really great, but that's the idea behind the design, in my opinion.
Although I get the idea that the monk is actually supposed to replace the rogue, not the fighter, given how the 4e designers were talking at gencon.
See, I always tell people that the monk is supposed to be a skills oriented character, and no one ever understands. It is supposed to be a character that has a lot more mobility than say, a fighter, but also gains the ability to hold its own in a fight. However, the concept behind it is such that it suggests it is a primary warrior. I personally feel the player should have a choice as far as that goes, as there are obviously concepts in popular fiction that suggest a martial ascetic can be one or the other, if not both.
Speaking of 4e, I look forward to the promise of easier party modulation. Finally we'll see a party with a non-cleric healer. No more of this "this special class works well as a backup caster/healer/striker/tank." I'm sick of classes that are only recommended as the fifth party member.
I like the ability to opt out of divine magic, as it were, but not even that can get me excited about the idea of all that spending... Stupid new books.
Also, 3.5 is just too complicated.
Again, I feel like this is more of a personal preference than a valid mechanical concern.
The game needs to be a little more out-of-the-box friendly.
Yeah, I think there is a place for it, but I'm highly against my material being dumbed down or stripped of easily available options for the sake of new players. I mean, it's D&D, not Rabbinical law, it isn't really THAT difficult. Anyone nerdy enough to be playing D&D can handle the rules, or should be able to.
No one is going to stop anyone from introducing extra options and complexity, but there is nothing added to the game by fast healing that regeneration doesn't cover fine.
Um, regeneration and fast healing are two entirely different entities that don't even operate in the same fashion. They have a lot of effective similarities, but the existence of both allow for more complexity of creature design. Also, regeneration is such an uncommon trait that I don't even see why this is an issue of such debate. I mean, who has it- trolls? Maybe the occasional weird-ass creature from a supplement?
I agree about the nitpicks. They're fun from a certain perspective, but in the end, it's a game, for cryin' out loud.
Not just a game, a game among many, MANY games. *****ing and moaning and crying to great lengths about 3.5 is like walking into Taco Bell and making a stink because you hate the way soft tortillas taste. I mean, just order a ****ing nacho supreme and shut up already, you know?
I forgot about the psychic strikes, which is actually interesting. And you make an excellent point about the fighter [and why I'd never play one]. Fighters are pretty featureless. they're supposed to be a build your own beatstick thing, but the feats aren't enough to give them the pizazz they so need.
Soulknife looks like it might be intended to walk the warrior/rogue line, too, but the thing is it doesn't do either particularly well. However, like I have said, it is a very easy fix.
Another point- I feel like sometimes there are players and DMs that begrudge a system over the EXISTENCE of lackluster character options, as if the system should be biased so towards the player that you could not possibly make a bad character. While that is a nice ideal, it's also unrealistic nonsense. Part of allowing the player to be able to shape their character is allowing them to make mistakes, and since class is part of the character creation process of D&D, it shouldn't be some virtual impossibility for a person to pick a bad option for their playstyle/stats/whatever. Some classes are gonna suck in some games, and some characters are gonna suck due to poor player choices or what not, but as long as no one character concept or class sucks in ALL situations, I feel like the system is probably doing its job. Others don't agree, apparently, but I think they might be expecting too much personalization out of a system written by someone who has never met them and is merely trying to make a system that has as much general appeal as possible.
Sure, it's tough to make so many classes and balance them all against each other. I think 3.5 did a good job at that actually. I just think some of their base standards are off and DND has an off-kilter feel that favors and unfavors certain character archetypes.
About the thing that confused you: I'm taking the perspective of a class designer. When you handicap a class, you give it goodies to balance it. But a class is supposed to have goodies just for being there also. I feel like the goodies that are there to make up for some of the monk's handicaps are also being counted as the normal goodies, which sucks because it means the monk doesn't get those normal goodies.
I agree that the fighter experiences great nerfing, but at least he shines at lower levels. A monk has a very ascetic feel. Just try convincing a DM that a character whose class concept is practically "no weapons and no armor" should get a +3 smiting sai.
@complexity: I know that regeneration isn't that common, but DND is positively FULL of complicated exceptions and marginal mechanics. I would simply like for a law-aligned fist to actually mean something, but with the RAW variety, it just too rarely does.
wamyc, you obviously haven't heard of something called ignoring the rules, right? Honestly, if my playgroup played by the book, we would've been bogged down. We cut some corners when it comes to gaming.
Also, if you thought 3.5 was complex, you don't wanna look at AD&D.
I started with AD&D, and though because I know 3.5 the better of the two, AD&D never struck me as complicated thac0 notwithstanding...
And ignoring the rules can only take you so far. To start with, I think any system where it's only a question of how much you ignore has a complexity problem. I've never been in a game that came even close to observing all the rules - not even counting out the rules no one likes, such as encumberance.
Then there's getting people to agree on houserules. What one person sees as mispowered or clunky another sees as part of a well-tested machine.
And how do you "ignore" the mind-rapeingly terrible horror of shape-altering effects and the 20 minutes of stat-making that involves or the pain of an enemy caster for a DM, an unfamiliar spell or action, or the fact that there are dozens of criteria the game checks for [silver/epic/magical/adamantium/cold iron/etc.?
I think I agree with Wamyc about classes whose class features replicate the effects of weapons. The crux of it, to me, is that they are earning through levels what other charactes earn through money, something which is a much more fluid resource and that is more easily obtainable. What's more, most characters can earn stuff through money and through experience at the same time.
Monks cannot do that except for a small number of items such as accessories, something that automatically puts them at a disadvantage. They get less that makes up for this than they need to, and though they receive a boatload of class features, many of these abilities have trivial or partial applications.
Immunity to poison and disease are both good to have, but neither of those things are core driving threats in D&D - it isn't like having immunity to energy drain or ability drain. The AC bonuses are good, but they don't replace the AC you can acquire through armor selection (again, something most characters pay for with noney, monks pay for with their resources as a class). The lack of full Base Attack Bonus is a major hit to usefulness, and Flurry of Blows only evens out the disadvantage, rather than giving them a really good tool in combat.
Spell resistance is fun, but it comes later in the game than a monk would need. A 13th level character is starting to face threats that can largely ignore spell resistance with spells that aren't affected by it. And spell resistance is really like AC - it needs to be something like 25+ at that level to be much of a defense, and the monk's resistance doesn't reach very high.
I like abundant step, but once per day is an incredibly annoying limitation. It should allow ki uses or something, much like a ninja.
The monk should be a more durable stealthy/mobile character that can thwart magic and is skilled at maneuvering in battle. I'd suggest better BAB, additional AC increases, a d10 hit die, earlier access to SR, and some ki uses per day system to be used for Sp or Su abilities that enable their expertise. Better skill points might not be uncalled for, either. I'd also like to see some more "combat trick" abilities à la Stunning Fist and Quivering Palm, but that might be asking too much at this point. We shall see, I suppose.
I'm glad to hear that 4E will be taking a different approach to class roles. The cleric-as-only-good-healer convention is one I've been tired with for a long time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
House-rules? DM decides. Don't wanna play by those rules? Don't play. That being said, in the same breath, no one will wanna play if you're not reasonable.
And AD&D was complicated because of the Proficiency system, the separate XPs, level limits, dual-classing, and more.
@Alcar: No offense, but you can't suggest that the DM have all the say in house rules when there are so many points of complication and controversy. DND has a lot of talking points for potential house rules. I'm hoping 4e cleans house a bit so the areas to fix shrink. With a bit of streamlining, modding will be less cumbersome, and even with as much as I love modding games, what I really want is to fall in love with the RAW.
Besides, not every DM is a rules lawyer. A good DM doesn't necessarily have to be the best at the rules, he should tell the best story. Also, many DM's just don't care about class balance issues or really even have taken the time to understand these issues.
Besides, not every DM is a rules lawyer. A good DM doesn't necessarily have to be the best at the rules, he should tell the best story. Also, many DM's just don't care about class balance issues or really even have taken the time to understand these issues.
That's because 90% of the time, balance issues are irrelevant when it's just a bunch of friends around the table. This isn't MTG, so there isn't a global metagame- and while we spend a lot of time ruminating over things like this, I really don't think that there are a lot of fighter and monk players who are leaving the table at the end of the night with thoughts like "Damn! If ONLY I were comparable to Mike's cleric! God damn this system and it's inequalities, keeping the man down, ***** ***** moan!"
And ignoring the rules can only take you so far.
Right, after a point you might as well just get a sandbox and some action figures, because the more rules you ignore, the closer to just messing around and telling a story it becomes.
AD&D never struck me as complicated thac0 notwithstanding...
I don't know, all I know is that I spent a lot of time looking over 2e rules in the past and feeling so turned off by the complexity of the rules that I never wanted to play it. Okay, maybe no the complexity on its own. The random-ass arbitrations helped, too.
And how do you "ignore" the mind-rapeingly terrible horror of shape-altering effects and the 20 minutes of stat-making that involves or the pain of an enemy caster for a DM, an unfamiliar spell or action, or the fact that there are dozens of criteria the game checks for [silver/epic/magical/adamantium/cold iron/etc.?
Alright- polymorph admittedly sucks. Creating a spellcaster is no more time consuming than creating any reasonably leveled NPC to throw at a party, and in my experience it is basically the same in any given system. Unfamiliar actions ALWAYS cause a flip through the rulebook, regardless of the system, by nature of being "unfamiliar", and the whole DR/whatever thing- serious, what's the hang up on that? That has to be one of the most simple rules in 3.5. I mean, if a weapon is the quality described, it does full damage, if not, it doesn't. It's incredibly easy to understand- are there really people being thrown off by this on a regular basis?
More and more I feel like a lot of the contentions I hear about 3.5 have less to do with mechanical validity (outside the occasional argument on divine spellcasting, polymorph, or class balance), and more to do with personal preferences that a person construes to be a balance issue. This is why I wish people would stop screaming for changes to 3.5 and just go out and play a game that they might enjoy more, that way everyone is happy.
I just think some of their base standards are off and DND has an off-kilter feel that favors and unfavors certain character archetypes.
I think this is probably true, but I think a good degree of that truth is dependent on how the game is run. It isn't that hard to run a game that favors any entirely different standard of archetypes without applying a single rules mod, it's just that when most people play D&D they play the status quo game that tends to favor warrior on low, casters on high, and combat all around. Perhaps my experience with the system is just too atypical for me to argue against what Average Joe gamer has played, because of all the games I've been part of, a good 3/4ths of them have been fairly atypical by the standards of what most people consider to be average D&D.
Just try convincing a DM that a character whose class concept is practically "no weapons and no armor" should get a +3 smiting sai.
Again, maybe my experiences are too atypical. I cannot see any reason why anyone who has DMed for me or why I would not allow this myself as a DM. It may have more to do with the fact that our group tends to decide what is appropriate for any given character is determined more by concept and less by class stereotypes.
About the thing that confused you: I'm taking the perspective of a class designer. When you handicap a class, you give it goodies to balance it. But a class is supposed to have goodies just for being there also. I feel like the goodies that are there to make up for some of the monk's handicaps are also being counted as the normal goodies, which sucks because it means the monk doesn't get those normal goodies.
Yeah, I can see that, and I've made the same argument before. I'm not arguing that the monk is a balanced class, the only thing I had to say was that no one can argue that they don't have class features- they may need to be distributed better or made more efficient, but they are there- and that I don't feel the monk's fists should be any better than the range of damage dice allowed by normal weapons because A) fists can be magically augmented like weapons, B) there are magical items that grant weapon abilities to unarmed strikes like weapons, and C) the monk who wants to have a bunch of tricked out weapons can select from a pool of monk weapons that allow him to have potent weapons without sacrificing his flurry of blows ability.
If I were to fix the monk, I would suggest A) better BAB, which I think we all can agree on, or B) ability revisions that better supplement its less obvious role as a skills-oriented, mobility-oriented character. As it stands now, it is clearly designed to be one, but it lacks a lot of the tools necessary to facilitate that role well.
With a bit of streamlining, modding will be less cumbersome, and even with as much as I love modding games, what I really want is to fall in love with the RAW.
I both understand this, and don't. For instance, I understand wanting to be smitten with a system straight out of the box, and wanting to play a game as-is, but at the same time, I creatively subsist on customizing a game to suit the playstyle of myself and my players, so I don't ever want a system that is so iron-clad that it doesn't want modifications.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[16:23] Alacar Leoricar: maybe if you do it'll make the porn more meaningful
Haha, I lifted K's comments from a very long, thorough, and complete guide to different ways to build a necromancy-themed character he or she wrote. I know in many fandoms poking fun as various idiosyncrasies in the game is a big part of the fandom humor, and no actual criticism of the system is intended. (In fact, pretty much -all- WoW-centric humor comes from poking at quirks in the game, and the game has -far- fewer accumulated and legacy quirks than D&D, in addition to simply having way fewer rules.) OotS derives virtually all of the humor in the first years of its run from poking at idiosyncrasies in the game (really old people are -better- at hearing quiet things and seeing hidden things than young people, for instance, if you use the aging rules), but it's hard to argue that Rich doesn't have a deep love for the game. (If not for the psionics rules.)
EDIT: I've read through a number of 3.5 books in a fairly short period of time, as well as historical (well, going back several years) criticism of the game, and it's somewhat clear that the people in charge are actually pretty responsive to what people want. Things -do- seem to be moving in a kind of MMO-ish direction (I don't mean that as a criticism, just an observation; most MMOs, after all, trace their lineage to a great degree back to D&D). The Knight, for instance, is a fairly direct translation of many typical MMO 'tank' classes, something that isn't so true of the Fighter. (The hallmark of an MMO tank class, besides heavy armor and hit points, is the ability to get foes to attack him or her with priority disproportionate to the threat that he or she actually poses to them.) The fighter can only do this with positioning. (And perhaps the odd feat.)
Polymorph effects, for instance, take a lot of heat for being complicated, causing weird interactions, and so on. Recent books, however, include much simpler (though usually much weaker) 'form' spells, which allow characters to shapeshift in a mechanically simpler way. (Though there's still the issue of why characters would want to use spells known or spells prepared each day on dramatically less flexible spells.)
Haha, I lifted K's comments from a very long, thorough, and complete guide to different ways to build a necromancy-themed character he or she wrote. I know in many fandoms poking fun as various idiosyncrasies in the game is a big part of the fandom humor, and no actual criticism of the system is intended. (In fact, pretty much -all- WoW-centric humor comes from poking at quirks in the game, and the game has -far- fewer accumulated and legacy quirks than D&D, in addition to simply having way fewer rules.) OotS derives virtually all of the humor in the first years of its run from poking at idiosyncrasies in the game (really old people are -better- at hearing quiet things and seeing hidden things than young people, for instance, if you use the aging rules), but it's hard to argue that Rich doesn't have a deep love for the game.
Right, there is a pointed difference between that and just outright complaining, however.
(If not for the psionics rules.)
I've always sort of been irked by him because of that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[16:23] Alacar Leoricar: maybe if you do it'll make the porn more meaningful
I get the thing about too many complications, though I think the picture is of it being too "right out of the box." You can pick any class and just follow the level progression chart, basically, but the system itself is monolithic and very precariously balanced, so that if you ever want to make alterations, there are too many things you can't touch without knocking the whole thing over. Magic is a good example. Creating your own spells and spell lists is a huge endeavor because there are so many extraneous parameters to define, and putting it together with a balanced spell list is that much more difficult. There doesn't seem to me any good way to easily measure how much any one rules item is "worth," such as a class feature or spell progression.
As such, there are some leanings in the game that are hard to surmount. There are scads of class and feat options for people wanting to having spellcasting alongside other abilities, but there are almost no avenues for characters wanting to diverge into new paths while keeping key features like bardic music, etc. And creating your own isn't as facilitated because how would you do it, anyway?
@Shapeshifting: It's actually hard to come up with a simple, easy mechanic for shapechanging. The core True20 shapechange abilities essentially just imitate the D&D ones. I've been trying to devise a way of implementing transformation powers that doesn't rely on an emormous table of alternate forms.
The way it's done in d20 is to select a default form from a big list, then become it. But you can't pinpoint any specifics - if you take the form of a human, your ability scores are exactly as they would be for a human with the normal ability array. If you take the form of a beast, you are exactly as the particular creature would be with no variation.
I'm also trying to make a good power for changing into things that aren't defined by being a creature, such as being able to transform into water, gas, energy, or some other substance. There are a few things that do this in D&D, but I'd need to define what properties all of these would have and how they apply to being the body of a living creature. Can a creature made of water hold or manipulate an object? Could a creature made of gas apply force?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
I recall being impressed on the surface by BESM's shapeshifting system, but I don't remember how it works and I don't remember why I thought it was cool. At all. (I'm at work, and thus I can't check). I'm pretty sure it doesn't allow free-range shapeshifting; I think it's a one-alternate-form thing. (The BESM system has no pretensions of being either realistic or general; its features are firmly and exclusively focused on allowing players to play anime-style games.) It's a fairly organic system, classless and levelless. For example, there are at least two different skills that give your character generic magical abiilty; one, "Dynamic Sorcery", is like an always-on macro version of prestidigitation, giving your character a generally undefined set of minor magical powers, with some restrictions. (For example, I believe that Dynamic Sorcery can't be used to make offensive attacks.) Another, the "Magic" skill, gives your character a small set of named, user-defined, thematically related supernatural abilities, such as a Magical Girl might have. There's also a system for defining the effect of your character's attack or attacks, and there's no reason that an attack can't be flavored as a magical ability. There's also specific other skills, like Environmental Control and Illusion that give specific, focused magical abilities. (Now watch me go home for my lunch break and be completely underwhelmed by BESM's shapeshifting scheme.) I know it -does- have a specific set-up for changing into a liquid, gaseous, or incorporeal form, but it's a somewhat less numbery system so, the power reads like 'your character turns into a liquid', not like 'water has hardness zero and your character is treated as having - constitution and can be evaporated in 2d6 rounds by heat greater than X degrees.)
There is a water creature template in either Manual of the Planes or Planar Handbook that's the base creature, only made of water, and an air creature template as well. (And earth and fire creature templates, of course.) That -might- fill the need.
Some of the complication with D&D shapeshifting is almost inevitable with the sheer number of parameters any given creature has, and even the number of parameters each parameter has.
Hello all. Long time gamer here, been playing since the good old NES days. I didn't really get into RPGs until FF7 came out. FF9 killed me on playing most traditional RPGs though. I mainly stick to Tactics (FFTactics, Disgaea, etc.) based RPGs and RTSs now. I have played the old Vampire: TM, and have tried (without success) to get into D&D games, because it does look interesting to me. Currently I am back to playing FFXII and acting as a WPL of a Magic based RPG here on Salvation (Link in sig).
The 4th Edition Player's Handbook comes out in May 2008. Various products between now and next spring provide previews and sneak-peeks into the making of the new game. Keep an eye on dndinsider.com for all the latest 4th Edition news.
The DMG and MM for 4th will be out very soon after that as well.
I can't for the life of me figure out why I remembered BESM as having a cool shapechange system. The metamorphosis attribute is a standard 'make up one or alternate forms when you take this ability. You can turn into those. (Or turn other people into those, for double the cost in character points.) The Shape Change attribute is just Disguise Self (or Disguise someone else, for more points; if you can only make a specific kind of change, it's fewer points.) Neither is lame, but neither is really impressive in its design. Maybe the cool shape change system is in some splat book?
Welcome qfx My boyfriend is Arguas2617, and I'm really enjoying reading the quests you guys put up Its a lot, lot, lot of fun to read and I'm glad he's been able to help you out
EDIT: if anyone else here has read the MTG book called Arena, you should really check out his RP thing.. Its awesome
Right now I'm stuck fast to Wild ARMs 5, and loving it immensely. I did like WA4 to an extent, but it never felt like a Wild ARMs game to me, so I was left a little disappointed. But this one...whoa. It has everything. Great characters, an engaging storyline with a really dynamic battle system, and ASGARD OMG.
For d20 Modern I recently designed a class that was intended to represent a shapeshifter that didn't just take on the stat blocks of a bunch of preexisting creatures. My goal was a "freeform" shapeshifter. With levels in the class you accumulate a list of creature qualities (such as movement speeds, natural attacks, DR, fast healing, spell resistance, ability score bonuses, extra limbs, and so on) that are categorized by grades. You start having a number of familiar creature types and gain new ones as you rise in level. As a standard action you can transform into the shape of your choosing. The transformation works like alter self, except you don't get the natural attacks and movement speeds automatically, and you can choose any familiar type instead of just your own type. But when you transform, you can choose creature qualities from the grade of qualities you can assume at that level. The number of qualities you can add to yourself is dependent on your class level and your Constitution modifer, as well as the number of times per day you can transform.
So far, it's been fun and effective. I've also allowed the class to learn a small number of spell-like and psi-like abilities that are meant to emulate those that some beings use innately. Doing things this way, it feels a lot easier to balance, and it doesn't take as much referencing to put together a new form, as it can pretty much be done on the fly by glancing at your list of available creature qualities.
What do you think?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Welcome qfx My boyfriend is Arguas2617, and I'm really enjoying reading the quests you guys put up Its a lot, lot, lot of fun to read and I'm glad he's been able to help you out
EDIT: if anyone else here has read the MTG book called Arena, you should really check out his RP thing.. Its awesome
I am glad that he is helping me out, as I just felt like I was being swamped. He has really taken a lot of pressure off.
Right now I'm stuck fast to Wild ARMs 5, and loving it immensely. I did like WA4 to an extent, but it never felt like a Wild ARMs game to me, so I was left a little disappointed. But this one...whoa. It has everything. Great characters, an engaging storyline with a really dynamic battle system, and ASGARD OMG.
Yeah =)
I started playing it when it first came out, then life got in the way. Now that life has gotten back to normal I am loving being able to play it again. I haven't played any of the Wild Arm games. What style RPG are they?
FF12 sucks. The graphics are nice, the battle system is...interesting, if not the most entertaining or practical thing, but the storyline isn't nearly epic enough for me, and for the 30 hours I've played it for, 15 of them have been running back and forth from places, because they keep making up excuses for why my damn airship won't work. Bah.
\rant.
@Mamelon: sounds very cool. I like it.
Yes! New playgroup is found today! Goodbye getting-really-old-really-fast-kick-in-the-door gameplay!
If I were to fix the monk, I would suggest A) better BAB, which I think we all can agree on, or B) ability revisions that better supplement its less obvious role as a skills-oriented, mobility-oriented character. As it stands now, it is clearly designed to be one, but it lacks a lot of the tools necessary to facilitate that role well.
My main proplem with the monk is the lack of customization for it, i think that monk should be added an ability that he'd get at level 2, level 5, 8 and every three levels thereafter, that would give him some stacking ability of his choice - Sneak attack damage, some Spell-like ability or even attack bonus. Perhaps even Smite Something. This way you could build your monk to be a holy crusader - Smite, attack bonus. Or an assasin - Sneak attack damage. What i mean is that they should be given a slower advancement of other classes abilities in addition to their unarmed might. Choices could be around as following..
+1d6 Sneak Attack Damage [Stacking, damage increases.]
+1 Attack Bonus [Stacking.]
Smite attack 1/day (+4 attack bonus, Wisdom modifier to damage.) [Stacking, you ge additional uses.]
Shadowstep for up to 20ft 1/day [Stacking, you get additional uses.]
Deliver spells with range of 'touch' as unarmed attacks instead.
Hide in plain sight.
Feat: Mobility
Feat: Dodge
Feat: Expertise
Feat: Improved Trip
Feat: Improved Grapple
Feat: Stunning Fist
Anyways, you get the idea. This way monks could actually specialize in something and be good at it, instead of just having a crapload of semi-useless class abilities. I mean, monks that want to become assasins just can't do it, because their sneak attack won't be good enough. Monks that want to combat well, can't do it because their BAB is too low. You get the idea.
Also, trash that "Can't keep advancing as monk" crap. It just doesn't make sense. "I found enlightement in becoming a psionic." "GO AWAY YOU CAN'T BE A MONK ANYMORE BECAUSE YOU CAN USE YOUR BRAINS!"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
Also, material components are idiotic, assinine, and inconvenient. Let's hope 4e drops them altogether.
@ether: I also really liked to be able to shuffle the party. Edward finally got to be the powerful character I always wanted him to be. There are, however, a lot of party configurations I wanted to try out that didn't include Cecil.
@mam & photon: thanks for the thorough and convincing explanation of why mind thrust sucks.
@ photon: While the monk does get some interesting non-combat abilities, the soulknife's class abilities [if I remember correctly] are all focused on making his swords better; and that's fine for weapon power/versatility. But where are the actual [non-corrective] class features? In the same way, many of the monk's powers aren't treated as merely correcting for the lack of weapons. Not only is there something wierd about a +4 shocking quartetstaff, there's something extremely awkward about vorpal shuriken. Also, a fighter can use pretty much any weapon bought or found - not a monk.
Although I get the idea that the monk is actually supposed to replace the rogue, not the fighter, given how the 4e designers were talking at gencon. Speaking of 4e, I look forward to the promise of easier party modulation. Finally we'll see a party with a non-cleric healer. No more of this "this special class works well as a backup caster/healer/striker/tank." I'm sick of classes that are only recommended as the fifth party member.
Also, 3.5 is just too complicated. The game needs to be a little more out-of-the-box friendly. Noone is going to stop anyone from introducing extra options and complexity, but there is nothing added to the game by fast healing that regeneration doesn't cover fine.
Yeah, I think we might actually be able to agree on that.
It doesn't suck, to be fair, it just isn't very good.
To be fair, I did say that I agreed that the soulknife was lacking in class features. But let me ask YOU a question then- where are the fighter's class features?
Also, the soulknife gets psychic strike, which is a little like sneak attack. Not much, granted, but it extends beyond just "making their swords better".
I sort of have a love/hate relationship with those sort of nagging insights. A lot of the time they can be very funny and can point out a lot of loopholes and design flaws that can be addressed, but after a certain point you just want to tell the person making them to shut up and go play something else. I mean, it's fine to an extent, but when it comes to the point where a person does NOTHING but complain about the game, you sort of have to ask why they insist on playing it any further and ruining it for everyone else.
I forgot about the psychic strikes, which is actually interesting. And you make an excellent point about the fighter [and why I'd never play one]. Fighters are pretty featureless. they're supposed to be a build your own beatstick thing, but the feats aren't enough to give them the pizazz they so need.
Also, I edited in more content in my last post.
Yeah, this would be a sheerly personal issue with it, and not really a mechanical flaw, though.
Yes, but the fighter also doesn't get a variety of other class features. They aren't really great, but that's the idea behind the design, in my opinion.
See, I always tell people that the monk is supposed to be a skills oriented character, and no one ever understands. It is supposed to be a character that has a lot more mobility than say, a fighter, but also gains the ability to hold its own in a fight. However, the concept behind it is such that it suggests it is a primary warrior. I personally feel the player should have a choice as far as that goes, as there are obviously concepts in popular fiction that suggest a martial ascetic can be one or the other, if not both.
I like the ability to opt out of divine magic, as it were, but not even that can get me excited about the idea of all that spending... Stupid new books.
Again, I feel like this is more of a personal preference than a valid mechanical concern.
Yeah, I think there is a place for it, but I'm highly against my material being dumbed down or stripped of easily available options for the sake of new players. I mean, it's D&D, not Rabbinical law, it isn't really THAT difficult. Anyone nerdy enough to be playing D&D can handle the rules, or should be able to.
Um, regeneration and fast healing are two entirely different entities that don't even operate in the same fashion. They have a lot of effective similarities, but the existence of both allow for more complexity of creature design. Also, regeneration is such an uncommon trait that I don't even see why this is an issue of such debate. I mean, who has it- trolls? Maybe the occasional weird-ass creature from a supplement?
Not just a game, a game among many, MANY games. *****ing and moaning and crying to great lengths about 3.5 is like walking into Taco Bell and making a stink because you hate the way soft tortillas taste. I mean, just order a ****ing nacho supreme and shut up already, you know?
Soulknife looks like it might be intended to walk the warrior/rogue line, too, but the thing is it doesn't do either particularly well. However, like I have said, it is a very easy fix.
Another point- I feel like sometimes there are players and DMs that begrudge a system over the EXISTENCE of lackluster character options, as if the system should be biased so towards the player that you could not possibly make a bad character. While that is a nice ideal, it's also unrealistic nonsense. Part of allowing the player to be able to shape their character is allowing them to make mistakes, and since class is part of the character creation process of D&D, it shouldn't be some virtual impossibility for a person to pick a bad option for their playstyle/stats/whatever. Some classes are gonna suck in some games, and some characters are gonna suck due to poor player choices or what not, but as long as no one character concept or class sucks in ALL situations, I feel like the system is probably doing its job. Others don't agree, apparently, but I think they might be expecting too much personalization out of a system written by someone who has never met them and is merely trying to make a system that has as much general appeal as possible.
About the thing that confused you: I'm taking the perspective of a class designer. When you handicap a class, you give it goodies to balance it. But a class is supposed to have goodies just for being there also. I feel like the goodies that are there to make up for some of the monk's handicaps are also being counted as the normal goodies, which sucks because it means the monk doesn't get those normal goodies.
I agree that the fighter experiences great nerfing, but at least he shines at lower levels. A monk has a very ascetic feel. Just try convincing a DM that a character whose class concept is practically "no weapons and no armor" should get a +3 smiting sai.
@complexity: I know that regeneration isn't that common, but DND is positively FULL of complicated exceptions and marginal mechanics. I would simply like for a law-aligned fist to actually mean something, but with the RAW variety, it just too rarely does.
Also, if you thought 3.5 was complex, you don't wanna look at AD&D.
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
thoughbecause I know 3.5 the better of the two, AD&D never struck me as complicated thac0 notwithstanding...And ignoring the rules can only take you so far. To start with, I think any system where it's only a question of how much you ignore has a complexity problem. I've never been in a game that came even close to observing all the rules - not even counting out the rules no one likes, such as encumberance.
Then there's getting people to agree on houserules. What one person sees as mispowered or clunky another sees as part of a well-tested machine.
And how do you "ignore" the mind-rapeingly terrible horror of shape-altering effects and the 20 minutes of stat-making that involves or the pain of an enemy caster for a DM, an unfamiliar spell or action, or the fact that there are dozens of criteria the game checks for [silver/epic/magical/adamantium/cold iron/etc.?
Monks cannot do that except for a small number of items such as accessories, something that automatically puts them at a disadvantage. They get less that makes up for this than they need to, and though they receive a boatload of class features, many of these abilities have trivial or partial applications.
Immunity to poison and disease are both good to have, but neither of those things are core driving threats in D&D - it isn't like having immunity to energy drain or ability drain. The AC bonuses are good, but they don't replace the AC you can acquire through armor selection (again, something most characters pay for with noney, monks pay for with their resources as a class). The lack of full Base Attack Bonus is a major hit to usefulness, and Flurry of Blows only evens out the disadvantage, rather than giving them a really good tool in combat.
Spell resistance is fun, but it comes later in the game than a monk would need. A 13th level character is starting to face threats that can largely ignore spell resistance with spells that aren't affected by it. And spell resistance is really like AC - it needs to be something like 25+ at that level to be much of a defense, and the monk's resistance doesn't reach very high.
I like abundant step, but once per day is an incredibly annoying limitation. It should allow ki uses or something, much like a ninja.
The monk should be a more durable stealthy/mobile character that can thwart magic and is skilled at maneuvering in battle. I'd suggest better BAB, additional AC increases, a d10 hit die, earlier access to SR, and some ki uses per day system to be used for Sp or Su abilities that enable their expertise. Better skill points might not be uncalled for, either. I'd also like to see some more "combat trick" abilities à la Stunning Fist and Quivering Palm, but that might be asking too much at this point. We shall see, I suppose.
I'm glad to hear that 4E will be taking a different approach to class roles. The cleric-as-only-good-healer convention is one I've been tired with for a long time.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
And AD&D was complicated because of the Proficiency system, the separate XPs, level limits, dual-classing, and more.
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
Besides, not every DM is a rules lawyer. A good DM doesn't necessarily have to be the best at the rules, he should tell the best story. Also, many DM's just don't care about class balance issues or really even have taken the time to understand these issues.
That's because 90% of the time, balance issues are irrelevant when it's just a bunch of friends around the table. This isn't MTG, so there isn't a global metagame- and while we spend a lot of time ruminating over things like this, I really don't think that there are a lot of fighter and monk players who are leaving the table at the end of the night with thoughts like "Damn! If ONLY I were comparable to Mike's cleric! God damn this system and it's inequalities, keeping the man down, ***** ***** moan!"
Right, after a point you might as well just get a sandbox and some action figures, because the more rules you ignore, the closer to just messing around and telling a story it becomes.
I don't know, all I know is that I spent a lot of time looking over 2e rules in the past and feeling so turned off by the complexity of the rules that I never wanted to play it. Okay, maybe no the complexity on its own. The random-ass arbitrations helped, too.
Alright- polymorph admittedly sucks. Creating a spellcaster is no more time consuming than creating any reasonably leveled NPC to throw at a party, and in my experience it is basically the same in any given system. Unfamiliar actions ALWAYS cause a flip through the rulebook, regardless of the system, by nature of being "unfamiliar", and the whole DR/whatever thing- serious, what's the hang up on that? That has to be one of the most simple rules in 3.5. I mean, if a weapon is the quality described, it does full damage, if not, it doesn't. It's incredibly easy to understand- are there really people being thrown off by this on a regular basis?
More and more I feel like a lot of the contentions I hear about 3.5 have less to do with mechanical validity (outside the occasional argument on divine spellcasting, polymorph, or class balance), and more to do with personal preferences that a person construes to be a balance issue. This is why I wish people would stop screaming for changes to 3.5 and just go out and play a game that they might enjoy more, that way everyone is happy.
I think this is probably true, but I think a good degree of that truth is dependent on how the game is run. It isn't that hard to run a game that favors any entirely different standard of archetypes without applying a single rules mod, it's just that when most people play D&D they play the status quo game that tends to favor warrior on low, casters on high, and combat all around. Perhaps my experience with the system is just too atypical for me to argue against what Average Joe gamer has played, because of all the games I've been part of, a good 3/4ths of them have been fairly atypical by the standards of what most people consider to be average D&D.
Again, maybe my experiences are too atypical. I cannot see any reason why anyone who has DMed for me or why I would not allow this myself as a DM. It may have more to do with the fact that our group tends to decide what is appropriate for any given character is determined more by concept and less by class stereotypes.
Yeah, I can see that, and I've made the same argument before. I'm not arguing that the monk is a balanced class, the only thing I had to say was that no one can argue that they don't have class features- they may need to be distributed better or made more efficient, but they are there- and that I don't feel the monk's fists should be any better than the range of damage dice allowed by normal weapons because A) fists can be magically augmented like weapons, B) there are magical items that grant weapon abilities to unarmed strikes like weapons, and C) the monk who wants to have a bunch of tricked out weapons can select from a pool of monk weapons that allow him to have potent weapons without sacrificing his flurry of blows ability.
If I were to fix the monk, I would suggest A) better BAB, which I think we all can agree on, or B) ability revisions that better supplement its less obvious role as a skills-oriented, mobility-oriented character. As it stands now, it is clearly designed to be one, but it lacks a lot of the tools necessary to facilitate that role well.
I both understand this, and don't. For instance, I understand wanting to be smitten with a system straight out of the box, and wanting to play a game as-is, but at the same time, I creatively subsist on customizing a game to suit the playstyle of myself and my players, so I don't ever want a system that is so iron-clad that it doesn't want modifications.
EDIT: I've read through a number of 3.5 books in a fairly short period of time, as well as historical (well, going back several years) criticism of the game, and it's somewhat clear that the people in charge are actually pretty responsive to what people want. Things -do- seem to be moving in a kind of MMO-ish direction (I don't mean that as a criticism, just an observation; most MMOs, after all, trace their lineage to a great degree back to D&D). The Knight, for instance, is a fairly direct translation of many typical MMO 'tank' classes, something that isn't so true of the Fighter. (The hallmark of an MMO tank class, besides heavy armor and hit points, is the ability to get foes to attack him or her with priority disproportionate to the threat that he or she actually poses to them.) The fighter can only do this with positioning. (And perhaps the odd feat.)
Polymorph effects, for instance, take a lot of heat for being complicated, causing weird interactions, and so on. Recent books, however, include much simpler (though usually much weaker) 'form' spells, which allow characters to shapeshift in a mechanically simpler way. (Though there's still the issue of why characters would want to use spells known or spells prepared each day on dramatically less flexible spells.)
Right, there is a pointed difference between that and just outright complaining, however.
I've always sort of been irked by him because of that.
As such, there are some leanings in the game that are hard to surmount. There are scads of class and feat options for people wanting to having spellcasting alongside other abilities, but there are almost no avenues for characters wanting to diverge into new paths while keeping key features like bardic music, etc. And creating your own isn't as facilitated because how would you do it, anyway?
@Shapeshifting: It's actually hard to come up with a simple, easy mechanic for shapechanging. The core True20 shapechange abilities essentially just imitate the D&D ones. I've been trying to devise a way of implementing transformation powers that doesn't rely on an emormous table of alternate forms.
The way it's done in d20 is to select a default form from a big list, then become it. But you can't pinpoint any specifics - if you take the form of a human, your ability scores are exactly as they would be for a human with the normal ability array. If you take the form of a beast, you are exactly as the particular creature would be with no variation.
I'm also trying to make a good power for changing into things that aren't defined by being a creature, such as being able to transform into water, gas, energy, or some other substance. There are a few things that do this in D&D, but I'd need to define what properties all of these would have and how they apply to being the body of a living creature. Can a creature made of water hold or manipulate an object? Could a creature made of gas apply force?
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
There is a water creature template in either Manual of the Planes or Planar Handbook that's the base creature, only made of water, and an air creature template as well. (And earth and fire creature templates, of course.) That -might- fill the need.
Some of the complication with D&D shapeshifting is almost inevitable with the sheer number of parameters any given creature has, and even the number of parameters each parameter has.
The DMG and MM for 4th will be out very soon after that as well.
I can't for the life of me figure out why I remembered BESM as having a cool shapechange system. The metamorphosis attribute is a standard 'make up one or alternate forms when you take this ability. You can turn into those. (Or turn other people into those, for double the cost in character points.) The Shape Change attribute is just Disguise Self (or Disguise someone else, for more points; if you can only make a specific kind of change, it's fewer points.) Neither is lame, but neither is really impressive in its design. Maybe the cool shape change system is in some splat book?
EDIT: if anyone else here has read the MTG book called Arena, you should really check out his RP thing.. Its awesome
Magic Coffeehouse!
Come in, sit down, relax, get to know somebody!
Open Three and a Half Years as of October 19, 2009!
Banner by PurpleD and avatar/custom by Tanthalas
Right now I'm stuck fast to Wild ARMs 5, and loving it immensely. I did like WA4 to an extent, but it never felt like a Wild ARMs game to me, so I was left a little disappointed. But this one...whoa. It has everything. Great characters, an engaging storyline with a really dynamic battle system, and ASGARD OMG.
Yeah =)
For d20 Modern I recently designed a class that was intended to represent a shapeshifter that didn't just take on the stat blocks of a bunch of preexisting creatures. My goal was a "freeform" shapeshifter. With levels in the class you accumulate a list of creature qualities (such as movement speeds, natural attacks, DR, fast healing, spell resistance, ability score bonuses, extra limbs, and so on) that are categorized by grades. You start having a number of familiar creature types and gain new ones as you rise in level. As a standard action you can transform into the shape of your choosing. The transformation works like alter self, except you don't get the natural attacks and movement speeds automatically, and you can choose any familiar type instead of just your own type. But when you transform, you can choose creature qualities from the grade of qualities you can assume at that level. The number of qualities you can add to yourself is dependent on your class level and your Constitution modifer, as well as the number of times per day you can transform.
So far, it's been fun and effective. I've also allowed the class to learn a small number of spell-like and psi-like abilities that are meant to emulate those that some beings use innately. Doing things this way, it feels a lot easier to balance, and it doesn't take as much referencing to put together a new form, as it can pretty much be done on the fly by glancing at your list of available creature qualities.
What do you think?
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
Thank you for the welcome.
I am glad that he is helping me out, as I just felt like I was being swamped. He has really taken a lot of pressure off.
I started playing it when it first came out, then life got in the way. Now that life has gotten back to normal I am loving being able to play it again. I haven't played any of the Wild Arm games. What style RPG are they?
\rant.
@Mamelon: sounds very cool. I like it.
Yes! New playgroup is found today! Goodbye getting-really-old-really-fast-kick-in-the-door gameplay!
My main proplem with the monk is the lack of customization for it, i think that monk should be added an ability that he'd get at level 2, level 5, 8 and every three levels thereafter, that would give him some stacking ability of his choice - Sneak attack damage, some Spell-like ability or even attack bonus. Perhaps even Smite Something. This way you could build your monk to be a holy crusader - Smite, attack bonus. Or an assasin - Sneak attack damage. What i mean is that they should be given a slower advancement of other classes abilities in addition to their unarmed might. Choices could be around as following..
+1d6 Sneak Attack Damage [Stacking, damage increases.]
+1 Attack Bonus [Stacking.]
Smite attack 1/day (+4 attack bonus, Wisdom modifier to damage.) [Stacking, you ge additional uses.]
Shadowstep for up to 20ft 1/day [Stacking, you get additional uses.]
Deliver spells with range of 'touch' as unarmed attacks instead.
Hide in plain sight.
Feat: Mobility
Feat: Dodge
Feat: Expertise
Feat: Improved Trip
Feat: Improved Grapple
Feat: Stunning Fist
Anyways, you get the idea. This way monks could actually specialize in something and be good at it, instead of just having a crapload of semi-useless class abilities. I mean, monks that want to become assasins just can't do it, because their sneak attack won't be good enough. Monks that want to combat well, can't do it because their BAB is too low. You get the idea.
Also, trash that "Can't keep advancing as monk" crap. It just doesn't make sense. "I found enlightement in becoming a psionic." "GO AWAY YOU CAN'T BE A MONK ANYMORE BECAUSE YOU CAN USE YOUR BRAINS!"
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.