| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
keteryck |
|||
|
Well, I think the entire object weight chart should be excised and that the bonus to attack should be based on tier... but otherwise yeah, I love that kind of
ability.
|
|||
hagen kirk |
|||
|
keteryck>as has been pointed out other places, once you play that basic character for awhile and want something more complex your best option is basically
to make a new character that isn't that class. Look at Gygax's groups where everyone was pretty much a spellcaster b/c they were so ridiculously
overpowered compared to fighters. I wouldn't want to play a fighter in a group like that. The game actually has a similar complexity at all levels now. No
one class is easier or more difficult to start with and you get some more options as you go up, but basically keep doing the same sorts of things you have
always done.
Oh yeah, old school fighter vs 4E character with 1 at will and maybe an encounter power to start is more options than "I swing my sword" but perfectly well balanced for a younger kid to figure out. "Roll high on this one right? Is 20 good enough?" |
|||
Vampus |
|||
ripped0ff wrote: You've inspired me to try a writeup of this kit. However, I firmly believe that barbarians are strikers. Thus, I made a shift in the focus. The class selection would be as such: TWF Ranger or Brawny Rogue. This creates some power overlap in the writeup, which is intentional. It's not polished, but it is inspired by Robert E. Howard. The Secret of Steel The barbarian knows only one weapon type: melee. The barbarian is proficient with all melee weapons, and can treat all melee weapons as light weapons for the purposes of class abilities and feats. Survival of the... The barbarian learns the stealth and thievery skills, and learns to wear hide armor, all as a part of growing up in the wild. When wearing Hide, Leather, or Light armor, the Barbarian receives no armor check penalty to skills. Tough The barbarian gains the toughness feat for free at first level. Turn the Other Fist (Daily) Once per day, the barbarian may immediately make an opportunity attack against an opponent who strikes him in melee. Panther's Ferocity (Encounter) The barbarian flies into a ferocious rage, catching enemies off guard. For a number of rounds equal to his Constitution modifier, the barbarian gains the Combat Advantage against all declared opponents due to the sheer brutality of his attacks. The barbarian does not need to roll a bluff check. After the specified number of rounds, the rage ends, and the barbarian is winded. All opponents the barbarian fights from this point forward gain a Combat Advantage against him until he completes his next short rest |
|||
zadoc |
|||
keteryck>as has been pointed out other places, once you play that basic character for awhile and want something more complex your best option is basically to make a new character that isn't that class. Right, because everything is equally complex. If you want something more complex or less complex, the rules don't really support you. Getting a completely new set of powers isn't more complex, it's just less familiar. The wizard is slightly more complex, but only if you want it to be. No class is less complex, and I'd also say that's the more important aspect to keep. Look at Gygax's groups where everyone was pretty much a spellcaster b/c they were so ridiculously overpowered compared to fighters. I wouldn't want to play a fighter in a group like that. But, in Gygax's groups, half of them were also playing fighters, so they're a pretty bad example, as most of the players had multiple characters. Of course they were all playing spellcasters. You can only play so many non-spellcasters at once. Oh yeah, old school fighter vs 4E character with 1 at will and maybe an encounter power to start is more options than "I swing my sword" but perfectly well balanced for a younger kid to figure out. But you're giving someone half a character to play while everyone else plays whole characters, so they are pretty much going to be inferior, and I wouldn't say that's the best way to introduce someone to the game. They're going to be less effective just by virtue of not knowing exactly what to do, they don't need to also be crippled by the character they're playing. Especially since there are, in fact, a decent number of grown people who like playing less complicated characters. I like complex characters, but it's nice to play a simple fighter from time to time, too. With 4e, there is no simple character to play, and 'just don't use half your powers' is not a solution. |
|||
Knowe Remorse |
|||
|
I've never seen a system with so many houserules and homebrew classes within 1 week of the release of the product of 4E. Why do players need to fix what
the guys at WOTC were paid to do, and charged $$$/book to the gamer?
Why should we have to create a monk, or a bard, or a barbarian on our own? Why do we have to create new powers etc to make something different? Why wasn't it good enough on its own without mods being needed within the same day of release. Personally, I think it's a poor design... it shouldn't be lacking upon the first release.. Rather, it should be inspiring. I played my first 4E game this weekend, picked the fighter because "they are so much cooler now" and by the middle of the second fight my special unique powers were just another yawn. BFD. Combats took just as long if not longer than the old system, and I was just as uninspired using my at will abilities as I was watching the rogue do his. /shrug.
Never hit a man when he is down. Kick him, it's alot easier.
|
|||
madfox |
|||
|
Each his own... nobody btw said that 4E combats would be shorter. They said that the time a PC and the DM needs to do his stuff becomes shorter so that more
things happen in the same combat. In my experience that is definitely true.
The weird thing is that people say that 4E is boring with the PCs doing one thing over and over, is that when I look at 3E gamess that is what happened at low-levels as well while at higher levels the fighter-types also did the same thing over and over and the spellcasters had so much more choice they began to dominate the game. As for why we are making new stuff immediately, in 3E the new rules included more options than 2E including all the non-core material and the system was quiet complicated to adjucate at the time. 3E includes so many options at the moment, that obviously 4E has less. There is no way all the splat books can be placed in the three core books. Note: ranger archers are relatively simple, while if people want complicated I would advice wizards (using his controlling powers tactically can be a huge difference) , melee rogues (manouvering) or warlocks (especially the fey and far realm one). Some classes in practice are simpler than others not in power selection, but in how to use those powers effectively. |
|||
Cthon |
|||
|
On these very boards, 3e had houserules and homebrew classes right away, too.
Heck, I started a homebrew base class within a few days of getting my 3e PHB.
_______________________
bored with changing signatures |
|||
Vampus |
|||
Knowe Remorse wrote: Actually, house rules are a strength, not a weakness. If they make a game where you can't invent house rules, it would be the death of the game.
|
|||
keteryck |
|||
|
Knowe Remorse: I've never seen a system with so many houserules and homebrew classes within 1 week of the release of the product of 4E. Why do players
need to fix what the guys at WOTC were paid to do, and charged $$$/book to the gamer?
|
|||
High Priest of Syrinx |
|||
Utgardloki wrote: Roles are the basis of RPGs where characters are built using classes rather than a more modular design. In 3.5 the number of overlapping options (classes,
abilities, feats, etc.) had muddled the original roles to the point where you could really build anything by picking and choosing abilities from the many
options, similar to a GURPS-like game design.
|
|||
Soulmage |
|||
Knowe Remorse wrote: Obviously you don't remember the early days of 3E then. Look, 4E just came out. . . the amount of content available in the core 3 rulebooks is comparable to the amount in the 3.0 core rulebooks. Little more in some places, a somewhat less in others. All that huge selection of content we got used to is a product of eight years of releases of splat books, campaign settings, and supplements. Its going to take a while to get 4E built up to that level as well. One frequent complaint I head about 3.5 supplements was, "Why am I paying money for this when I could do it myself." Well 4E has fixed that particular complaint. As the OP noted, creating a new class from whole cloth is a MAJOR investment of time and energy. Now you're going to be paying wizards to do all that work for you. You're definitely going to be getting your money's worth of content in the 4E releases. . . unlike 3.5 where much of it was useless, or so derivative of existing options that it was unnecessary. I don't recall the comment exactly, I wish I'd sigged it. . . but somebody pointed out that if Wizards gave away free money, people would still find cause to complain.
My current obsessions!
Big gun battleship games: Miniatures: Grand Fleets Computer: Battleship Chess Battlestar Galactica Colonial Battlefleet Miniatures Game |
|||
Confused Jackal Mage |
|||
I don't recall the comment exactly, I wish I'd sigged it. . . but somebody pointed out that if Wizards gave away free money, people would still find cause to complain. WIZARD ONLY GIVES FREE FIVES, HAVE TO GO TO BANK TO CHANGE TO TWENTIES WTF WIZARDS IS SHILL FOR LINCOLN LOLGTG
"Observer-dependent physics undermines the gods' decision 3000 years ago to ban cats from straddling the borders of the
netherworld. We won't have it!"
"I have reservations about reconciling a quantum mechanics thought experiment with egyptian mythology." "Djinn and Juice", Dresden Codak |
|||
Eldric IV |
|||
madfox wrote: My complaint with it is that at low-levels in 3e, I was just using a base attack. Now I am using a "power" instead of a base attack. Using a
power all the time (at-will) takes away any special feeling.
**Final Words, before the battle with Demogorgon: My life does not matter. It was given to me to better the lives of my people. Please give the Pureblade to my
son so that he may finish what I start here today.**
|
|||
Cthon |
|||
|
Why should the first two or three powers feel special? Is it because they are called "powers"? They constitute the basic fighting style of a class.
What about trying daily power when the PC is higher level?
_______________________
bored with changing signatures |
|||
hagen kirk |
|||
zadoc wrote: a)I don't understand why anything needs to be more complex. The game has been streamlined and works very well, why muck it up w/needless complication? b)They were all playing multiple characters. The only ones who anyone ever remembers, and the ones you always see those players telling stories about, is their casters. c)The specific example I used the 1 daily+1 encounter power for was ket and his 5 yr old nephew. Would I tell an adult the same? No I'd explain how all the powers worked, help them choose something and answer any questions that came up during the game. It's not that difficult. Everything is right there and you can just photocopy 3-4 pages for each class to cover everything they can possibly do thru level 5. For teaching D&D to a 5 yr old (I dunno that I would use 4E for that even, probly grab my basic set off the shelf), it's a perfectly fine solution. |
|||
keteryck |
|||
|
a) because some player might want that. Most don't need it, so most should not be that complex.
b) Yrag, Robilar, Quij? Their wizards went on to do major things in the setting, but their fighters didn't, it's true. c) D&D is the entry RPG for most players, but is not at all setup to make it easy to adopt new players. That's a failing. RPGs have a number of player types, including people who show up just to be social and hang out with other people. The lack of a simple option for them, if they want it, is a failing. |
|||
Arlechino |
|||
Eldric IV wrote:
Also, at low levels doing 1d12+3 damage with a greataxe WAS pretty special. It ws enough to take out many level-appropriate foes in one or two hits. The
current melee at-will powers don't do that (because enemies have more HPs now)
***
The human body is about 60% water. Cucumber is around 96% water. Eating cucumber is therefore approximately 57.6% cannibalism. Correlate: cannibals are 57.6% cucumnivorous. |
|||
Crazy Jerome |
|||
|
I've got a different slant on the issue raised by the OP: If a new class is taking some time, requiring some review of the other classes, and not seeming
to be the kind of thing you can just whip out--well, good! That is the way it is supposed to be. Because with 4E, the designers have almost completely
severed the link between classes and archetype. If your friend Joe wants to play, say, "a guy that hits things and wears armor", that's not
enough info to design his character. He could be a ranger, rogue, or fighter. Now, he is probably a fighter, based on the kind of things that people want
when they say they want to hit things and wear armor, but we don't know for sure until we ask. So concept first, pick class to model it.
Alright, so now Joe says, "I want to play a barbarian." Again, you dig deeper. Either what he wants is fairly close to an existing class (enough that it is just a flavor issue, or a handful of tweaks to an existing class will do), or it isn't. If it isn't close enough, then the task is not to whip out a new class (or prestige class or whatever) in a few hours that covers what Joe wants. Rather, the task is to identify what combination of role, power source, abilities, etc. is missing from the game, and design that class--suitable for anyone that wanted to fill that niche. They may fail to achieve it, but the apparent goal of 4E is to have far fewer classes, but each one be solid. I prefer that, personally. Now that said, I can see that this would be easier on us house ruling guys (or someone just trying to make Joe happy with a minimum of effort), if we had more optional sub systems to play with (or ignore). That would also cover the easy/harder class issue. It would be nice, for example, if there was a way to have a simplified class progression table, where the character got more at wills, slightly less encounter powers, no dailies, and just enough utility powers, none of them daily, to not be a piece of cardboard. That would be the equivalent of the "easy fighter". I'm not sure if that is possible, but would be handy if it was. You can't get much easier than: I've got a few things that can do all the time, and this handful that I can do once per encounter. End of story. Well, you could drop feats and skills entirely, but that's another game. For more complex, you just need another sub system or three that work like rituals. Some classes get them easy, and others can buy if they want. Don't know what those sub systems would be, but buying into them with feats and skills, as rituals works, would seem to be the way to go. Easy characters just don't take those feats, and guys that want to go mechanics wacky pick them up.
CJ
"The smell of burnt fire monkey is not a cure for sea sickness." - my players |
|||
nostantine |
|||
keteryck wrote: My 8 and 10 year old nephews were playing 3e fitghters for that exact reason. We hit 4th level, and he was so swamped with the situational bonuses and
buffs, along with proficiencies and feat exceptions he was pretty swamped by 4th level.
MUGATU!
EEE! EEE!
|
|||
Utgardloki |
|||
Vampus wrote:I think you have some good ideas, Vampus. If I were going to complete my 4E Barbarian class I'd implement them. Making a class in 4E is not that difficult, but it is time consuming, and the result is something that in inherently, by design, no way around it, limited. |
|||