All too true, but sadly some people look specifically for specialization, and neglect other things as they feel that all other party members will always be present to pick up the slack. It may be good at times to be the best at only one thing, but it is better in the long run to be good at several things.Thymos wrote:My point is that to have players diversify what powers or schticks they use we can't hold onto role protection being enforced by only allowing players to do one thing.
I waste it with my crossbow! Until the end of time!
Moderator: Moderators
Play the game, not the rules.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
Re: I waste it with my crossbow! Until the end of time!
I also do that, it's really challenging.hogarth wrote:I've been playing a sorcerer in a 4E game (I think we're level 2 or 3 right now) and literally 90+% of what I do is say: "I shoot the monster with my Acid Orb". I agree that it wouldn't be an improvement to go to 50% "Acid Orb" and 50% "crossbow", but neither option is very exciting.RandomCasualty2 wrote:Yeah, this is one of my major complaints about the edition. You can basically pick one schtick and just do that forever. There just aren't any tactical counters to many things, like healing especially.Lago PARANOIA wrote:One of the things I have noticed about 4E D&D is that there are rarely any situations where a players' tactic Just Doesn't Work.
Life is Beautiful, I love you all………
“A weapon like sword or crossbows is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands”
“A weapon like sword or crossbows is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands”
-
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
I've already received an answer to the questions this thread raises.
Winds of Fate, with only a few or preferably no duplicates. It's really that easy.
Winds of Fate, with only a few or preferably no duplicates. It's really that easy.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
- rasmuswagner
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 9:37 am
- Location: Danmark
Actually, you failed at 4E. Those vegepygmies should have had resistance 5 to piercing attacks, maybe 10 or 15 at the very most. That's how 4E handles all the weird resistances of earlier editions. You remind me of those early 3rd edition moments where the GM reads "Teleport, greater - at will" and takes it to mean "as a free action".Doom wrote: When I did the Expedition to the Barrier Peaks pseudo-conversion, my DnD4.0 players nearly went ballistic when they found out vegepygmies were highly resistant to piercing attacks (only take 1 point of damage, and I didn't use minions per se). Even the bow ranger, carrying melee weapons, went round after round in frustration with the +3 vicious bow rather than whip out anything else; the thought that a non-magical tool might be better just isn't in the mindset for this game.
Yes, instead of having your monk pick up a pair of ghost touch nunchucks to fight a ghost, he gets to stare blankly at the ghost 66% of the time before picking up his ghost touch nunchucks. A vast improvement.Lago PARANOIA wrote:I've already received an answer to the questions this thread raises.
Winds of Fate, with only a few or preferably no duplicates. It's really that easy.
-
- Journeyman
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 1:23 am
I know this was a year ago, Thymos, but... how does this apply to Pokemon?Thymos wrote:When games, like Pokemon, Oblivion, or Fallout force plays to spend points to gain power, and the points can result in a more powerful option (in Fallout 3 for example there is little point in putting points in anything other than a single weapon category until it's maxed) the player doesn't really have a choice of what he does every combat. He's going to shoot his crossbow.
I've never played Pokemon, but wouldn't you tend to evolve/train/whatever a handful of your monsters to the exclusion of all others?Hieronymous Rex wrote:I know this was a year ago, Thymos, but... how does this apply to Pokemon?Thymos wrote:When games, like Pokemon, Oblivion, or Fallout force plays to spend points to gain power, and the points can result in a more powerful option (in Fallout 3 for example there is little point in putting points in anything other than a single weapon category until it's maxed) the player doesn't really have a choice of what he does every combat. He's going to shoot his crossbow.
-
- Journeyman
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 1:23 am
Since you can catch new pokemon at higher levels, it isn't the same as "if you try to use a different weapon, you start with no skill". Depending on what level your pokemon are, newly caught pokemon may be usable immediately.hogarth wrote:I've never played Pokemon, but wouldn't you tend to evolve/train/whatever a handful of your monsters to the exclusion of all others?
Also, you get six pokemon in your party. It's analogous to having 6 level-appropriate weapon skills in Fallout. Pokemon is a good example of a game giving the player a variety of choices in battle.
-
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
If you're using WoF, you don't need monsters that cockblock most of a character's arsenal in order to get them to shake up their tactics, since it's built into the game. I mean, wasn't that the point of monsters like golems and oozes?hogarth wrote:Yes, instead of having your monk pick up a pair of ghost touch nunchucks to fight a ghost, he gets to stare blankly at the ghost 66% of the time before picking up his ghost touch nunchucks. A vast improvement.Lago PARANOIA wrote:I've already received an answer to the questions this thread raises.
Winds of Fate, with only a few or preferably no duplicates. It's really that easy.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Wait -- so "gotta catch 'em all" means "gotta catch all 6"? That's lame.Hieronymous Rex wrote: Also, you get six pokemon in your party. It's analogous to having 6 level-appropriate weapon skills in Fallout. Pokemon is a good example of a game giving the player a variety of choices in battle.
I guess. But I'm not convinced that getting rid of golems/oozes/ghosts preserves the same amount of variety as you have with them.Lago PARANOIA wrote:If you're using WoF, you don't need monsters that cockblock most of a character's arsenal in order to get them to shake up their tactics, since it's built into the game. I mean, wasn't that the point of monsters like golems and oozes?
Last edited by hogarth on Wed May 25, 2011 4:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Prince
- Posts: 2606
- Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:43 pm
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHshadzar wrote:I think the big thing in that is that anyone can swing a stick/sword quite usefully after only a few tries
You've been watching too many movies where the hero swishes the sword a couple times and suddenly he kicks ass.
Tell you what. My friend's been fencing for 10 years. I'll give you 20 minutes with a foil and we'll see how useful you are.
fixed quote tag. --Z
Last edited by TheFlatline on Wed May 25, 2011 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Journeyman
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 1:23 am
That's... not what I said at all. You do catch everything you see. You keep 6 of them with you at a time, and can (and commonly do) swap them out in town.hogarth wrote:Wait -- so "gotta catch 'em all" means "gotta catch all 6"? That's lame.
The game is driven by type interaction, so (especially in the multiplayer, which is the main draw) having as many of them as you can get available for team building is crucial.
You get six Pokemon in your party and can store hundreds or thousands (depending on which generation of game you're playing) in your in-game PC, which can be accessed from any town in the game. If you're leveling all Pokemon in your party evenly (typically the best strategy, as if you have only one good Pokemon, you'll be ripped to shreds as soon as you run into a trainer with a type advantage), the wild Pokemon in any given area will be no more than a few levels behind, so it shouldn't be too hard to train them up to be on par with your existing Pokemon, which makes it not too painful to swap in a new Pokemon to replace one of your six.Wait -- so "gotta catch 'em all" means "gotta catch all 6"? That's lame.
Sorry for off-topic rant. I like Pokemon.
So your best best is to find six pokemon whose types allow advantages/resistances to most other types, and try to cover all 17 types with a total of 24 techniques.
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
Honestly? Give me twenty minutes with a club and I'll bet I can ruin your friend's day. I might end up with a few nasty pokes, but he'll be the one with his skull caved in at the end of the day.TheFlatline wrote:BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHshadzar wrote:I think the big thing in that is that anyone can swing a stick/sword quite usefully after only a few tries
You've been watching too many movies where the hero swishes the sword a couple times and suddenly he kicks ass.
Tell you what. My friend's been fencing for 10 years. I'll give you 20 minutes with a foil and we'll see how useful you are.
fixed quote tag. --Z
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- RadiantPhoenix
- Prince
- Posts: 2668
- Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
- Location: Trudging up the Hill
To bring this around to the original point.
If you pick up a bow and you've never used it before, you probably won't be able to actually hit anything with it unless it's already really close. If you pick up a sword and you've never used it before, you won't be at all a match for a master swordsman, but you will be able to actually hit your enemy.
If you pick up a bow and you've never used it before, you probably won't be able to actually hit anything with it unless it's already really close. If you pick up a sword and you've never used it before, you won't be at all a match for a master swordsman, but you will be able to actually hit your enemy.
But on the other hand:
Untrained guy shooting a trained foe - misses, then runs away.
Untrained guy swordfighting a trained foe - gets blocked, then stabbed.
On the original topic - the Fire Mage question is a tricky one. What should happen when a Fire Mage runs into an Asbestos Golem?
A) He's not very useful, or succeeds via DxM. This works fine in a story, but not so well in a game where the character sitting on the sidelines means a player not participating.
B) He just uses hotter fire. This preserves the character's theme, but can make things monotonous, and removes any player creativity from the equation.
C) He uses fire differently, by the rules. Making smoke screens, melting the ground, buffing allies via the "essence of fire", making cages of solid fire that entrap even if they don't hurt, and so forth. This gives some variety, but it doesn't really require any creativity - you're just looking at your powers and going "Fire Damage = No".
D) He uses fire differently, on the fly. Blasting a column so the arch collapses on the golem, making a wall of flame for the rogue to gain concealment, that kind of thing. Often the same tactics as C, just without any explicit rules to that effect. This is great from a narrative standpoint, and involves actual creativity, but it's partially MTP, and thus reliant on a good DM who the players are on the same page with.
E) He switches to something else - a crossbow, a different school of magic, a wand he had stockpiled, etc. This provides more variety, and sometimes more strategic elements (deciding to have the wand in question stockpiled), but it does take the character out of their theme.
Personally, I favor a combination of C and D, with a bit of E. Everyone should have some broadly useful options, and be able to improvise more within their theme. But it doesn't hurt to occasionally go outside that.
Untrained guy shooting a trained foe - misses, then runs away.
Untrained guy swordfighting a trained foe - gets blocked, then stabbed.
On the original topic - the Fire Mage question is a tricky one. What should happen when a Fire Mage runs into an Asbestos Golem?
A) He's not very useful, or succeeds via DxM. This works fine in a story, but not so well in a game where the character sitting on the sidelines means a player not participating.
B) He just uses hotter fire. This preserves the character's theme, but can make things monotonous, and removes any player creativity from the equation.
C) He uses fire differently, by the rules. Making smoke screens, melting the ground, buffing allies via the "essence of fire", making cages of solid fire that entrap even if they don't hurt, and so forth. This gives some variety, but it doesn't really require any creativity - you're just looking at your powers and going "Fire Damage = No".
D) He uses fire differently, on the fly. Blasting a column so the arch collapses on the golem, making a wall of flame for the rogue to gain concealment, that kind of thing. Often the same tactics as C, just without any explicit rules to that effect. This is great from a narrative standpoint, and involves actual creativity, but it's partially MTP, and thus reliant on a good DM who the players are on the same page with.
E) He switches to something else - a crossbow, a different school of magic, a wand he had stockpiled, etc. This provides more variety, and sometimes more strategic elements (deciding to have the wand in question stockpiled), but it does take the character out of their theme.
Personally, I favor a combination of C and D, with a bit of E. Everyone should have some broadly useful options, and be able to improvise more within their theme. But it doesn't hurt to occasionally go outside that.
Last edited by Ice9 on Wed May 25, 2011 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- King
- Posts: 5271
- Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am
Ohh. That was so true.Chamomile wrote:To bring this around to the original point.
If you pick up a bow and you've never used it before, you probably won't be able to actually hit anything with it unless it's already really close. If you pick up a sword and you've never used it before, you won't be at all a match for a master swordsman, but you will be able to actually hit your enemy.
But in some other point, if you haven't used it for some other time but had an experience to it. You could probably hit your enemy with out worries.
Ka-chow..
The medieval crossbow was called by many names, most of which derived from the word ballista, a torsion engine resembling a crossbow in appearance.