Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

D&D 5ed just released

1235789

Comments

  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    Walstafa said:

    Squire said:

    Walstafa said:


    What 3E and later have brought to the game, in my mind, is the idea that you're creating heroes, and that the game should give you the option to feel like someone who stands apart from the norm. Of course people are going to take advantage of that elevated power level, but if it bothers you, don't play with them.

    That's it exactly. In D&D3e, you create heroes. You're a hero from the moment you roll up ability scores. I personally don't like that, because I believe heroic status has to be earned, but...well, horses for courses, I suppose. As I said previously, different people want different things from an RPG.
    Absolutely, and it depends on the game you want. From what I've seen of 5e I could happily model, say Conan circa "Tower of the Elephant" at first level. With 2e, I'd be more likely to get something along the lines of Pippin circa "Fellowship of the Ring". It depends on what you want out of your game, but since I don't get to game as much as I used to these days, I'd rather go for a character who's already awesome rather than one who has to grow into his awesome.

    I'd actually characterize it more as being already "competent" at first level. Your level 1 fighter couldn't, for example, take on a horde of goblins by himself or even a young dragon, but he would stand a decent chance against a single other opponent of similar level, and he would probably wipe the floor with a Rogue character simply by virtue of having more hit points and (depending on your combat focus) better attack or damage.

    To me, level 1 showcases where you character will eventually go in their development. You're not amazing, but within your focus you're clearly better than anyone without that same focus. And especially if you're using the standard ability array (where 15 is the highest score you have to start with), the system has a very clear path to power.

    And for the first time, I can see a game happening where players start out more or less average (with no ability higher than 13, for instance), without the players feeling hopelessly unprepared for the challenges ahead of them.

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    Corvino said:

    Dammit, I just learned all the rules of Pathfinder.

    Wait, you learned ALL of the rules?

    jackjack
  • WalstafaWalstafa Member Posts: 116
    Well level 1 Conan was challenged by a giant spider, so that's about right. ;-)

  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 1,958
    Squire said:

    LadyRhian said:

    If your character is always awesome, there isn't much of a character arc, to be honest. Even Conan started as a thief before he became a fighter.

    Exactly. I'd rather have the journey to heroism.

    "Six months ago you were a farm boy who'd never so much as held a sword, and now you command the town garrison! Knights bow to you, when six months ago they'd have swatted you aside without so much as an apology! SIx months ago you'd have ran from a goblin. Now goblins run from you!"

    sounds so much more impressive, to me, than:

    "Six months ago, you were a hero. Now you're...a slightly better hero! You used to vanquish goblins single-handedly, but now you vanquish goblin champions!"

    But again, it's horses for courses. I play RPGs because I want to enjoy the journey. I want to start from humble beginnings and grow into something greater. I don't want to start as Aragorn and eventually become Gandalf, I want to start as Bob the Hunter/Farmer/Boatman/Whatever and work my way up to becoming Aragorn - and even then, Aragorn is the ultimate destination, and one I may never reach. And that's fine, because to me, the fun is in the journey.
    The example you gave is purely a matter of narrative and can be used to describe any kind of edition or game. I do think it's strange that you complain about 3rd Ed not having a "journey of power/ability", since out of 2nd and 3rd Ed the latter is the only one who makes such natural progression (the character becoming stronger, tougher, wiser, or a better leader as time goes and he becomes more experienced) part of the basic level advancement. Whether you start out powerful or not depends wholly on what you roll (the method used in the 3.5 PHB was 4d6-drop lowest, iirc), or what point buy sum your DM sets for you.

  • SquireSquire Member Posts: 512
    Not really, since in 3rd edition, you tend to be already considerably more powerful than the average enemy, or NPC guard (maybe that was the case in 2nd as well, I haven't played any 2nd edition D&D outside of Baldur's Gate). In 3rd edition, a level 1 party is quite easily capable of taking down a whole bunch of goblins. I'm sure I've been through this before (might have been on another forum), but if goblins are so easy that a level 1 character can defeat them with no real danger...why are people scared of goblins again?

    But anyway, that was more of a gripe with RPGs in general, than a specific 3rd edition thing. At least, with monsters able to take classes, 3rd edition games can be tweaked so that any monster can be a credible threat.

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    Squire said:

    Not really, since in 3rd edition, you tend to be already considerably more powerful than the average enemy, or NPC guard (maybe that was the case in 2nd as well, I haven't played any 2nd edition D&D outside of Baldur's Gate). In 3rd edition, a level 1 party is quite easily capable of taking down a whole bunch of goblins. I'm sure I've been through this before (might have been on another forum), but if goblins are so easy that a level 1 character can defeat them with no real danger...why are people scared of goblins again?

    But anyway, that was more of a gripe with RPGs in general, than a specific 3rd edition thing. At least, with monsters able to take classes, 3rd edition games can be tweaked so that any monster can be a credible threat.

    Don't confuse the campaign difficulty with the rules set. Any decent DM can make lower levels TOUGH if they want. In fact, most of the table top games I've ever played (2E) were less about surviving an endless series of random monster encounters and more about a narrative and a story. Combat was plenty tough and so we often times tried to stay out of it rather than lick our wounds and hope to survive another onslaught.

    But the ability to 'take classes' for the monsters isn't really a deciding factor in anything, and was largely cheap in my estimation. It was more an attempt to make things more 'samey' than actually to differentiate it and make it 'tougher'. Monsters can be plenty tough without classes.

    jackjackCatoblepas
  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,694
    This is how I see it- Original D&D and AD&D 1e- You are an ordinary person, but capable of greatness if you work hard at it.
    2e- You are a hero.
    3e- You are a superhero
    4e- You start as a superhero and end as a God.
    5e- Have not played yet.

    Part of that is/was power creep. Why spend your time being wimpy when you can dominate right out of the gate? A lot of those extra powers (feats and whatever) are geared to appeal to MMO players who get powers with a cool down (WOW, anyone?). I get it, it appeals to people who want to have cool powers right from the get go. But then again, if I wanted to play an MMO, I can go online and do that. I don't want to toddle along a pre-paved path that 1 million other players have trod before me. I want a story in which I can do heroic things by my choices- not what powers I pull out of my ass. I don't want to play a power fantasy- I want to play a roleplaying fantasy. I viewed the "MMO-izing" of AD&D with alarm. I don't are what S00perkewl powers you can wield. What did you do with them?

    You can view Acrobatics as something useless, or you can use it (with light armor and a short weapon) as a way to roll between the legs of your enemy, stand up behind him and stab him in the back all in one smooth move. In my view, a lot of D&D gave up role-playing for "ROLL" playing. And that's just not as fun.

    SquirejackjackLoremaster
  • VitorVitor Member Posts: 286
    edited August 2014
    LadyRhian said:

    This is how I see it- Original D&D and AD&D 1e- You are an ordinary person, but capable of greatness if you work hard at it.
    2e- You are a hero.
    3e- You are a superhero
    4e- You start as a superhero and end as a God.
    5e- Have not played yet.

    Well... It always depends on the way you generate your abillity scores. In every edition, if you roll:

    -3d6 for each abillity: You're an ordinary person.
    -4d6 dropping lowest result: You're an above avarage individual
    -Best six of seven 4d6 dropping lowest result: You're a flawless person.

    Actually, what will determine if you're a Hero or a Superhero, will be your level.

    1st Level with a Class: Normal person capable of greatness (If you're a Wizard or Cleric, then you're paranormal)
    2nd~6th Level: Hero
    7th~15th Level: Superhero
    16th~onward: Demigod

    Post edited by Vitor on
  • WalstafaWalstafa Member Posts: 116
    LadyRhian said:

    I get it, it appeals to people who want to have cool powers right from the get go. But then again, if I wanted to play an MMO, I can go online and do that. I don't want to toddle along a pre-paved path that 1 million other players have trod before me. I want a story in which I can do heroic things by my choices- not what powers I pull out of my ass. I don't want to play a power fantasy- I want to play a roleplaying fantasy. I viewed the "MMO-izing" of AD&D with alarm. I don't are what S00perkewl powers you can wield. What did you do with them?

    You can view Acrobatics as something useless, or you can use it (with light armor and a short weapon) as a way to roll between the legs of your enemy, stand up behind him and stab him in the back all in one smooth move. In my view, a lot of D&D gave up role-playing for "ROLL" playing. And that's just not as fun.

    I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying, but to play devils' advocate; if you didn't care about powers, why aren't you and your mates just sitting around telling stories without all the dice and the rulebooks?

    Different people put different emphasis on the "game" part of "roleplaying game", I get that, but I don't get how a fairer power curve makes an roleplaying game into a rollplaying one.

    To be honest, as someone who started playing Red Box and 2E, and is in two 2E games at present, I don't get the nostalgia folks have for the system. The rules have gaps and inconsistencies you could drive a train through and the uneven power curve (You couldn't pay me to play a 2E lvl 1 Wizard) meant that if someone was lucky enough to roll good stats, they ended up dominating the group in a lot of situations. It's serviceable in a lot of respects, but i think subsequent editions have added a lot to the game.

    And if you disagree? Cool. The fact that Wizards have iterated their product hasn't made your AD&D books go up in smoke. In fact, WotC have gone out of their way the last year to make all their old material available online via Drive Thru RPG.

    booinyoureyes
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 1,958
    Vitor said:

    LadyRhian said:

    This is how I see it- Original D&D and AD&D 1e- You are an ordinary person, but capable of greatness if you work hard at it.
    2e- You are a hero.
    3e- You are a superhero
    4e- You start as a superhero and end as a God.
    5e- Have not played yet.

    Well... It always depends on the way you generate your abillity scores. In every edition, if you roll:

    -3d6 for each abillity: You're an ordinary person.
    -4d6 dropping lowest result: You're an above avarage individual
    -Best six of seven 4d6 dropping lowest result: You're a flawless person.
    So much this (the same goes for the amount of purchasing power if you do point buy). By the way, 1st Ed even had a method for humans that allowed them to automatically start at the minimum for their chosen class or higher. Choose the right class and you were guaranteed a superhuman.

  • SquireSquire Member Posts: 512
    LadyRhian said:

    This is how I see it- Original D&D and AD&D 1e- You are an ordinary person, but capable of greatness if you work hard at it.
    2e- You are a hero.
    3e- You are a superhero
    4e- You start as a superhero and end as a God.
    5e- Have not played yet.

    That's pretty much how I see it too.

    It's not just down to dice rolls, it's down to the things you can do. In earlier editions, you weren't really capable of anything that other equivalents weren't also capable of. In new versions, you often are.

    For an RPG to work for me, if your level 1 fighter can do Tide of Iron (to use a 4th edition example :P ), every other soldier, bodyguard, watchman, town militia, etc you meet should also be able to do Tide of Iron, otherwise you can do something the average person can't, hence you're more powerful.

    jackjack
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    @LadyRhian - I think there is a fine line. and again it is largely about what campaign you are playing and who the DM is. For me, I have always hated the trope in CRPGs where you start out farming rats in the sewers. This, to me, is boring and a total waste of good story telling. You've been training since you were 5. You should be able to at minimum hold your own in a fight against someone who hasn't trained.

    On the other hand, I agree that, once you are too powerful, it becomes less fun. I think (personal opinion here) that 2E hit the right cord. You don't start out losing a fight with a wet mop (and hitting like a wet noodle), but you also are not even going out and totally dominating even half hit die creatures like Kobolds. It's a balance.

    booinyoureyes
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited August 2014
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    booinyoureyes
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    edited August 2014
    LadyRhian said:

    This is how I see it- Original D&D and AD&D 1e- You are an ordinary person, but capable of greatness if you work hard at it.
    2e- You are a hero.
    3e- You are a superhero
    4e- You start as a superhero and end as a God.
    5e- Have not played yet.

    Part of that is/was power creep. Why spend your time being wimpy when you can dominate right out of the gate? A lot of those extra powers (feats and whatever) are geared to appeal to MMO players who get powers with a cool down (WOW, anyone?). I get it, it appeals to people who want to have cool powers right from the get go. But then again, if I wanted to play an MMO, I can go online and do that. I don't want to toddle along a pre-paved path that 1 million other players have trod before me. I want a story in which I can do heroic things by my choices- not what powers I pull out of my ass. I don't want to play a power fantasy- I want to play a roleplaying fantasy. I viewed the "MMO-izing" of AD&D with alarm. I don't are what S00perkewl powers you can wield. What did you do with them?

    You can view Acrobatics as something useless, or you can use it (with light armor and a short weapon) as a way to roll between the legs of your enemy, stand up behind him and stab him in the back all in one smooth move. In my view, a lot of D&D gave up role-playing for "ROLL" playing. And that's just not as fun.

    All of that has very little to do with the ruleset, and everything to do with the GM/campaign. The same campaign can be adjusted for every edition, and if it's a good campaign with good players, it can turn into something special. There's nothing edition-exclusive about telling a good story. Nothing happened between 2nd and 3rd, 3rd and 4th, that somehow restricts your ability to contribute to a narrative.

    And, no, in 3E and 4E you certainly don't start as a superhero, unless you're fighting nothing but minions in 4E. In 3E, a housecat could kill a Wizard in one turn. In 4E you can knock a guy on his ass once or twice an encounter, maybe give a guy a deep wound that continually bleeds once per day. Can you survive a lot more in 4E than you could in 2E? Sure. That's because 4E is more about bringing you that narrative experience, because the protagonist doesn't get killed by a hobgoblin in the first episode of a new fantasy-adventure series. The hobgoblin smacks him around, the hero catches his second wind, uses a big daring attack, and makes a comeback, the same way a novel, TV, or cinema hero does.

    Post edited by Schneidend on
    Drugarbooinyoureyes
  • DrugarDrugar Member Posts: 1,566
    I actually like the fact that 4th Ed gave lvl1 characters some more survivability. It wouldn't be the first time either mine or someone else's character in a 3rd Ed campaign died on the first session because a goblin rolled a lucky 20.
    Danger, yes. Ability to die on one unlucky dieroll, no. Same reason I changed all 'Save or Die' spells to 'Save or get knocked to -1 hp'. Your character's life should never depend on one -single- die roll.

    booinyoureyes
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    edited August 2014
    Drugar said:

    I actually like the fact that 4th Ed gave lvl1 characters some more survivability. It wouldn't be the first time either mine or someone else's character in a 3rd Ed campaign died on the first session because a goblin rolled a lucky 20.
    Danger, yes. Ability to die on one unlucky dieroll, no. Same reason I changed all 'Save or Die' spells to 'Save or get knocked to -1 hp'. Your character's life should never depend on one -single- die roll.

    That's one of the guiding principles of 4E, making the ultra-fatal stuff from previous editions have less of an impact but still be worrisome. Even petrification, which doesn't necessarily kill you instantly, usually requires you to be first hit by the power and then fail two saving throws.

  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,694
    Vitor said:


    Well... It always depends on the way you generate your abillity scores. In every edition, if you roll:

    -3d6 for each abillity: You're an ordinary person.
    -4d6 dropping lowest result: You're an above avarage individual
    -Best six of seven 4d6 dropping lowest result: You're a flawless person.

    Actually, what will determine if you're a Hero or a Superhero, will be your level.

    1st Level with a Class: Normal person capable of greatness (If you're a Wizard or Cleric, then you're paranormal)
    2nd~6th Level: Hero
    7th~15th Level: Superhero
    16th~onward: Demigod

    3d6 was the way to roll a character in Original D&D and 1e when I played (4d6 drop lowest came later, as did 4d6 arrange stats as desired). My first OD&D character was a female fighter with a 14 strength. And that was her highest stat. 1e also had maximum strength for female characters, and if you had certain low stats, you were shoehorned into a class. Less than a 6 Charisma? Congratulations! You must be an assassin.
    Walstafa said:

    LadyRhian said:

    I get it, it appeals to people who want to have cool powers right from the get go. But then again, if I wanted to play an MMO, I can go online and do that. I don't want to toddle along a pre-paved path that 1 million other players have trod before me. I want a story in which I can do heroic things by my choices- not what powers I pull out of my ass. I don't want to play a power fantasy- I want to play a roleplaying fantasy. I viewed the "MMO-izing" of AD&D with alarm. I don't are what S00perkewl powers you can wield. What did you do with them?

    You can view Acrobatics as something useless, or you can use it (with light armor and a short weapon) as a way to roll between the legs of your enemy, stand up behind him and stab him in the back all in one smooth move. In my view, a lot of D&D gave up role-playing for "ROLL" playing. And that's just not as fun.

    I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying, but to play devils' advocate; if you didn't care about powers, why aren't you and your mates just sitting around telling stories without all the dice and the rulebooks?
    To have a set of guidelines to work with?
    Walstafa said:

    Different people put different emphasis on the "game" part of "roleplaying game", I get that, but I don't get how a fairer power curve makes an roleplaying game into a rollplaying one.

    To be honest, as someone who started playing Red Box and 2E, and is in two 2E games at present, I don't get the nostalgia folks have for the system. The rules have gaps and inconsistencies you could drive a train through and the uneven power curve (You couldn't pay me to play a 2E lvl 1 Wizard) meant that if someone was lucky enough to roll good stats, they ended up dominating the group in a lot of situations. It's serviceable in a lot of respects, but i think subsequent editions have added a lot to the game.

    And if you disagree? Cool. The fact that Wizards have iterated their product hasn't made your AD&D books go up in smoke. In fact, WotC have gone out of their way the last year to make all their old material available online via Drive Thru RPG.

    To be fair, you also have to play with your limitations. You low stats have a meaning for your character, too. But the game isn't and shouldn't be the GM presenting you with a scenario and you state actions and roll dice without some roleplaying in there. I think it's more fun to have some villain burst in and monologue and then your character says, "Never, you villain!" and THEN roll dice. I mean, ROLLplaying is like playing a board game, with no board. Ya rolls ya dice, you move to a new square, start over. And I have seen games like that.
    scriver said:

    Vitor said:

    LadyRhian said:

    This is how I see it- Original D&D and AD&D 1e- You are an ordinary person, but capable of greatness if you work hard at it.
    2e- You are a hero.
    3e- You are a superhero
    4e- You start as a superhero and end as a God.
    5e- Have not played yet.

    Well... It always depends on the way you generate your abillity scores. In every edition, if you roll:

    -3d6 for each abillity: You're an ordinary person.
    -4d6 dropping lowest result: You're an above avarage individual
    -Best six of seven 4d6 dropping lowest result: You're a flawless person.
    So much this (the same goes for the amount of purchasing power if you do point buy). By the way, 1st Ed even had a method for humans that allowed them to automatically start at the minimum for their chosen class or higher. Choose the right class and you were guaranteed a superhuman.
    Don't even get me started on that "Roll 9d6 for your primary stat, roll 8d6 for your secondary and so on" from Unearthed Arcana. Wanna play a god? There's your method!

    @LadyRhian - I think there is a fine line. and again it is largely about what campaign you are playing and who the DM is. For me, I have always hated the trope in CRPGs where you start out farming rats in the sewers. This, to me, is boring and a total waste of good story telling. You've been training since you were 5. You should be able to at minimum hold your own in a fight against someone who hasn't trained.

    On the other hand, I agree that, once you are too powerful, it becomes less fun. I think (personal opinion here) that 2E hit the right cord. You don't start out losing a fight with a wet mop (and hitting like a wet noodle), but you also are not even going out and totally dominating even half hit die creatures like Kobolds. It's a balance.

    More like 12 or 13, that was the general age of being apprenticed in the middle ages (admittedly, if you were going into your father's profession, you would have started earlier, but D&D is based on that kind of society).

    Time to go to work. Will answer the rest of these later.

  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    @LadyRhian‌ What you describe is entirely campaign-specific. It's just as easy to have a campaign where you tell your players, "Roll 3d6 six times, and those are your ability scores in order". The difference between 1e/2e and 3e/4e/5e is that if you do happen to roll abysmally, you still get a sense of your stats meaning something tangible; and in that campaign, the players are also going to be more likely to use roleplaying to solve problems than roll-playing. If I know that any dice I roll are going to suffer a penalty, I'm going to try and talk my way out of every crisis.

    But again, it's dependent on the campaign. All that changes from 1e to 5e is how the dice are resolved when they're eventually rolled.

    Walstafabooinyoureyes
  • ajwzajwz Member Posts: 4,122
    hahaha, I just read a bit on the wizards website about the retcon of forgotten realms history, and I must say I'm pleased

    jackjack
  • WalstafaWalstafa Member Posts: 116
    Dee said:

    @LadyRhian‌ What you describe is entirely campaign-specific. It's just as easy to have a campaign where you tell your players, "Roll 3d6 six times, and those are your ability scores in order". The difference between 1e/2e and 3e/4e/5e is that if you do happen to roll abysmally, you still get a sense of your stats meaning something tangible; and in that campaign, the players are also going to be more likely to use roleplaying to solve problems than roll-playing. If I know that any dice I roll are going to suffer a penalty, I'm going to try and talk my way out of every crisis.

    But again, it's dependent on the campaign. All that changes from 1e to 5e is how the dice are resolved when they're eventually rolled.

    Pretty much this. Just because 3e-onwards have touted point-buy and/or a standard ability array as the default doesn't prevent you from ignoring this in your own campaign as readily as I ignore the frenzied number-crunching of the CharOp brigade.

  • SquireSquire Member Posts: 512
    The difference is that in 2nd edition, ability scores didn't factor a great deal into your character's mechanical prowess. Sure, they helped a bit, but not having amazing scores in them didn't cripple your character the way it does in 3rd.

    A 2nd edition fighter with a strength of 9 may not be a particularly great fighter, but at least he can still fight a bit. A 3rd edition fighter with a strength of 9 isn't going to be doing any fighting. This is the problem with the new ability score tables, they've made ability scores far too important, to the point where unless you're Gregor Clegane, there's no point even attempting melee combat.

    Of course, 2nd edition wasn't perfect either...all ability scores, except the one you use for your main function, didn't matter at all. Intelligence was worthless for a fighter, since it only really governs casting spells, and charisma was the universal dump stat (which has now been replaced with constitution). At least 3rd edition brought an incentive to not neglect your other stats.

  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,694
    @Squire Well, that's not quite true. Your Intelligence also gave you an extra number of languages you could speak, which were used as extra skills when it came to the skills table. High Wisdom gave bonuses against certain types of spells (will affecting, so stuff like Horror, essentially). Even Charisma had a function. And yes, Dexterity and Constitution also had functions for most/all characters, as I am sure you are aware.

    (On break at work, so I can't post any more, but I agree with you that low abilities don't affect you as much in 2e as they do in 3e. And let it be said, the average for humans is a 9 in an ability- so even if the rules let you/make you have a 10, you are still above the general run of people.)

  • Dark_AnsemDark_Ansem Member Posts: 969
    I need a 3.5 to Next Conversion guidelines :D

  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 1,958
    @ajwz -
    ajwz said:

    hahaha, I just read a bit on the wizards website about the retcon of forgotten realms history, and I must say I'm pleased

    I'm still interested in said link, if you'd be so kind as to share it.

  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    Squire said:

    LadyRhian said:

    This is how I see it- Original D&D and AD&D 1e- You are an ordinary person, but capable of greatness if you work hard at it.
    2e- You are a hero.
    3e- You are a superhero
    4e- You start as a superhero and end as a God.
    5e- Have not played yet.

    That's pretty much how I see it too.

    It's not just down to dice rolls, it's down to the things you can do. In earlier editions, you weren't really capable of anything that other equivalents weren't also capable of. In new versions, you often are.

    For an RPG to work for me, if your level 1 fighter can do Tide of Iron (to use a 4th edition example :P ), every other soldier, bodyguard, watchman, town militia, etc you meet should also be able to do Tide of Iron, otherwise you can do something the average person can't, hence you're more powerful.
    Most monsters in 4E have abilities like Tide of Iron, or something similar, as a basic attack, which is actually better than the Fighter having Tide of Iron. The Fighter can't use his Tide of Iron on a charge, or as an opportunity attack, or otherwise when he is called to make any kind of melee basic attack. A monster could easily have an attack that pushes as a melee basic. Granted, the Fighter has his other powers, but the monsters usually have better basic attacks than you do.

    A 1st-level Fighter is supposed to be better than the average person. That's why he's an adventurer, and a Fighter, and not a guy who stands around town with a spear leering at people all day.

  • SquireSquire Member Posts: 512


    A 1st-level Fighter is supposed to be better than the average person. That's why he's an adventurer, and a Fighter, and not a guy who stands around town with a spear leering at people all day.

    Not in my games, he's not. :-P

    This is exactly why I don't like RPGs that impose that kind of mechanic on you. They force you to see the PCs, even at level 1, as being already heroes. This suggests that you can only be a hero if you already have whatever gift adventurers have, and ordinary people must remain content to stand around town with a spear leering at people all day, because they don't have the special gift required to be an adventurer (yet somehow this hasn't led to a special "adventurer class" developing throughout society).

    In my idea of RPGs, a level 1 fighter IS (or rather, starts out as) a person who stands around town with a spear, but he has made a decision to do something different. To me, that's what makes him a hero, not because he's better than everybody else but because he's willing to take the risks. This is why 4e doesn't work for me. I like the idea that everybody, even the town peasants, can potentially be heroes if they're willing to take the risks (and they are great risks, hence why not many people do it, and those who do and survive get rewarded for it).

    meaglothelement
  • ajwzajwz Member Posts: 4,122
    scriver said:

    @ajwz -

    ajwz said:

    hahaha, I just read a bit on the wizards website about the retcon of forgotten realms history, and I must say I'm pleased

    I'm still interested in said link, if you'd be so kind as to share it.
    difficult to split what is speculation and what is confirmed at this stage, but you can read about all the collected information here: http://community.wizards.com/forums/103371

    Also, you can search online for information about "the sundering" plotline that wizards having been running this and last year. Lots of fun stuff like Ao rewriting the tablets of fate, mystra mysteriously not being dead any more, a reset of the geography of the realms back to 3ed

    jackjackscriver
  • mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 9,937
    Being Mystra is clearly the most dangerous job in the Universe... if anyone offers you the job think twice before accepting :)

    jackjack
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    She's the only deity I've ever heard of whose average life expectancy is actually lower than the norm for a medieval setting, even excluding elves and dwarves.

    mlnevese
Sign In or Register to comment.