|
|
Post by Cyno on May 25, 2009 23:26:36 GMT -5
I'm GMing a SW Saga Edition game set in the KotOR era with a few friends right now. I really like it as a system, probably my favorite one out there. Also like d20 Modern/Future and D&D 3.5, though I think that system's a bit too bloated for its own good. I took a look at Mutants and Masterminds and it looks pretty fun and I'd love to try playing it someday. Also want to try out Paizo's Pathfinder "3.75" system when it gets a final release, as I liked Alpha 3 and Beta quite a bit.
As far as 4E goes, I'm not a fan and I'll leave it at that.
Going back to the first page of the thread with anime-ish PnP systems, the only one I'm really familiar with is Big Eyes Smell Mouths (or BESM) d20 (made by Guardians of Order), and it is really, really bad. The original version of BESM is based on a more original system by GoO called Tri-Stat and I'm not sure how that is, though I hear from my friends more familiar with it that it's a hell of a lot better than BESM d20.
|
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on May 25, 2009 23:35:02 GMT -5
1.) I understand that people like this are annoying, but honestly, these people are going to do this stuff wether or not there's an official system. Crappy players are crappy players. 2.) Removing alignment as a requirement doesn't make the clerics and paladins broken in 4th. While it may in 3rd, one of 4th Edition's biggest strengths is balance. Neither class is broken in any way in 4th. What i really hated about Paladin alignment restrictions is that it made no sense that a chaotic evil god or a neutral good god wouldn't have Paladins of the same alignment. Paladins are basically holy soldiers, spreading the dogma of their faith...I don't see why lawful should be a requirement unless the God is lawful. Would a chaotic evil god not have his own paladins leading the slaughter? In 4th these classes are still expected to act like their faiths desire them to, they just don't lose their powers after an alignment change(the idea being they are given their powers when they first become their class in a ritual). So now it's possible to say, have a corrupt cleric who is living a lie and pretending to be a follower, but secretly using the church and it's divine powers for his own selfish ends. I'd say removing the "change alignments and lose everything" mechanic allows for more interesting characters, especially when it comes to NPCs. If the DM sees the player actively acting outside of his faith, it's not hard to have the other members of the church, or even the deity itself, take notice and try to do something about it. 3.) The thing is this character is still completely doable in 4th. The only difference is the party's Paladin can't just walk around casting detect evil on everything to know who's corrupt and who isn't. Now it's possible for a lawful evil character to actually decieve a party that has a paladin or cleric. It's potentially storybreaking to have a walking evil detector with the party at all times. 4.) Well there's still the looser alignments that can act as a rough guide as to what a diety looks for. But really, the deities still have writeups that say what they govern and what they stand for. So it's not really any harder to say "this guy doesn't make sense as a follower of Kord" or anything like that. Without the alignment system, seriously fantastic stories, such as the rise and fall of Raistlin or Darth Vader can no longer take place. Are you really going to be as shocked and saddened by a character who was never officially "good" to begin with, suddenly start being evil? I find without an alignment system, these sorts of stories go from one guy being the special turn-coat villain, to pretty much the entire party turning to evil. (Before you say anything, yes, I realize Star Wars doesn't have an "alignment system" but it does have the Dark side system, which pretty much does the same thing." 3rd edition had optional rules for chaotic evil, lawful evil, and chaotic good paladins (Book of Unearthed Arcana, Chaotic evil were Slayers, Lawful evil were Tyrants, and Chaotic good were Liberators). Also, paladins turned to evil were more than welcome to enter into the Blackguard prestige class. Clerics weren't crippled like paladins were at all, and could change evil when ever they wished and would just worship a different god. The detect evil spell is probably one of the must misused and abused spells out there. When a Paladin or Cleric uses that spell, they really aren't supposed act like some stooge in the sky just said "Yup, he's evil alright, ya might wanna kill him." They get more of a gut feeling of dread...dramatic stuff like that...not the stupid "HIM EVIL HIM DIE!" stereotype. Besides that, a smart villain would just use detect good and use Hide alignment to conceal him/herself anyway. Clever DM's can also use detect evil to teach the players a lesson in not trusting such spells so implicity. A repentent evil character will still detect as evil until he/she makes an official alignment change. Characters attacking this person will suffer whatever punishments the DM wishes to inflict upon them. Alignment is a very particular and fragile kind of rule. Players and DMs need to be careful in it's use, but overall, it does increase roleplaying and creativity. The above example of the pirates getting killed by good characters IMO, is an example of the system being abused. How bad and evil were these pirates? Were the neutral good characters punished just as harshly as the lawful good ones? Were the pirates still attacking, despite being in the water? Did the pirates attack first? Again, IMO, the chaotic good player was shown huge favortism by the DM. Attacking the pirates in the water, if they were "helpless" was not an act of law, neutrality, or chaos, but of good, neutral, or evil. The chaotic good character "murdered" (an evil act, not a chaotic one) these supposedly "helpless" pirates just as much as the lawful and neutral ones did, and should have been punished just as harshly. A good way to think of Detect Evil is how in the Star Wars films, the Jedi Masters would always go, "I sense a disturbance in the Force..." |
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,366
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on May 25, 2009 23:38:54 GMT -5
I will defend my DM for those actions for a number of reasons. 1) My character was the lone chaotic neutral character in the party. I always had to try to sneak my less than honorable actions, and more than once I had the party draw their weapons against me because they (rightly) thought that I was about to do something completely against their morals. The conflict of good and almost evil in our party had become a major theme for our adventures, as half of the party wanted to save me from making that leap to evil and the other half of the party only followed me around because they felt that I needed to be contained and no one had witnessed me do anything that would earn me being locked up or executed.....yet. 2) Our DM tried to stay historically accurate whenever possible. Historically speaking, mid-evil sailors were weak swimmers, if they could swim at all. The pirates in the water were struggling mightily. They were no threat any longer. Even if they could get back to ship, their weapons had sunk to the bottom of the sea. Killing them was unnecessary, and in our game unnecessary killing was an affront to the chief god of good in our game. Not to mention, they were all dishonorable kills. That was fine for my character, but the rest of the party were followers of a god who did not tolerate such behavior. What they should have done was to stop me from killing the helpless pirates, save the pirates from drowning, and turn them over to the proper authorities so that they could stand trial. Sure, the pirates would have then been executed, but it would have been done the legal way that way. 3) My character was not punished because they would have been executed anyways, so I was merely carrying out their punishment early. It was not legal, but not evil either. Therefore, I bucked the legal system (a chaotic act) rather than committing an evil act. D'OH! I have no idea how or why I got this impression, but I thought your character was chaotic good when I first read your post. If he was chaotic neutral, than he would be fine with the actions he took and not need to be punished (playing alignment). I must ask, though, when your party was teleported to the god of good's home plane, did they try to fight? Because if they didn't, then I think the DM should have been a bit easier on them, especially if any of them tried to plead their case or beg for forgiveness or something like that. If the god just dropped some uber avatar on them that was an unreasonable killing machine, I have to question the god of good's ethics on this.  Basically, the avatar said that if we thought that killing people that cannot adequately defend themselves was so damned fun, then we should enjoy him killing us (as we could not adequately defend ourselves against him). He attacked us (presumably to give the goody-goody's in the party an impression of what they put the pirates through). |
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on May 25, 2009 23:40:02 GMT -5
Oh, another thing I don't like about 4th Ed is how it did balance all the classes.
That is lame and a cop out.
A Bard should NOT be on balanced with a Fighter or Barbarian, for example.
The Barbarians and Fighters were the tanks, the Paladins and Clerics were the Healers/Undead killers, the Druids were the Summoners, the Wizards and Warlocks were the long range, and the Rangers and Rogues were the agile fighters and trap/track finders.
The Monks....were just...there....ah, Monks kind of sucked.....
Making the classes balance removes the uniqueness of them. As I already stated, Wizards and Warlocks can do what Clerics can do and Clerics can do what Wizards and Warlocks do, so really, by making this possible, you don't NEED to have a Cleric AND a Wizard, you just need a Cleric or a Wizard.
That...ain't....right....
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,366
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on May 25, 2009 23:44:17 GMT -5
Without the alignment system, seriously fantastic stories, such as the rise and fall of Raistlin or Darth Vader can no longer take place. Are you really going to be as shocked and saddened by a character who was never officially "good" to begin with, suddenly start being evil? I find without an alignment system, these sorts of stories go from one guy being the special turn-coat villain, to pretty much the entire party turning to evil. (Before you say anything, yes, I realize Star Wars doesn't have an "alignment system" but it does have the Dark side system, which pretty much does the same thing." 3rd edition had optional rules for chaotic evil, lawful evil, and chaotic good paladins (Book of Unearthed Arcana, Chaotic evil were Slayers, Lawful evil were Tyrants, and Chaotic good were Liberators). Also, paladins turned to evil were more than welcome to enter into the Blackguard prestige class. Clerics weren't crippled like paladins were at all, and could change evil when ever they wished and would just worship a different god. The detect evil spell is probably one of the must misused and abused spells out there. When a Paladin or Cleric uses that spell, they really aren't supposed act like some stooge in the sky just said "Yup, he's evil alright, ya might wanna kill him." They get more of a gut feeling of dread...dramatic stuff like that...not the stupid "HIM EVIL HIM DIE!" stereotype. Besides that, a smart villain would just use detect good and use Hide alignment to conceal him/herself anyway. Clever DM's can also use detect evil to teach the players a lesson in not trusting such spells so implicity. A repentent evil character will still detect as evil until he/she makes an official alignment change. Characters attacking this person will suffer whatever punishments the DM wishes to inflict upon them. Alignment is a very particular and fragile kind of rule. Players and DMs need to be careful in it's use, but overall, it does increase roleplaying and creativity. The above example of the pirates getting killed by good characters IMO, is an example of the system being abused. How bad and evil were these pirates? Were the neutral good characters punished just as harshly as the lawful good ones? Were the pirates still attacking, despite being in the water? Did the pirates attack first? Again, IMO, the chaotic good player was shown huge favortism by the DM. Attacking the pirates in the water, if they were "helpless" was not an act of law, neutrality, or chaos, but of good, neutral, or evil. The chaotic good character "murdered" (an evil act, not a chaotic one) these supposedly "helpless" pirates just as much as the lawful and neutral ones did, and should have been punished just as harshly. A good way to think of Detect Evil is how in the Star Wars films, the Jedi Masters would always go, "I sense a disturbance in the Force..." True. I never read up to see whether detect evil changed after 2nd ed. Whenever I DMed, detect evil just meant that you caught the sense of evil in a general direction. If my noble is in a group of people when they got that sense, they had to try to rule out every one of those individuals as the evil one. |
|
|
|
Post by lockedontarget on May 25, 2009 23:51:50 GMT -5
[ Without the alignment system, seriously fantastic stories, such as the rise and fall of Raistlin or Darth Vader can no longer take place. Are you really going to be as shocked and saddened by a character who was never officially "good" to begin with, suddenly start being evil? This is ridiculous. Not having an alignment system in the mechanics of the game does not remove the concept of good and evil. An evil character is still evil, a good character is still good. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopher Mod on May 25, 2009 23:59:08 GMT -5
Oh, another thing I don't like about 4th Ed is how it did balance all the classes. That is lame and a cop out. A Bard should NOT be on balanced with a Fighter or Barbarian, for example. The Barbarians and Fighters were the tanks, the Paladins and Clerics were the Healers/Undead killers, the Druids were the Summoners, the Wizards and Warlocks were the long range, and the Rangers and Rogues were the agile fighters and trap/track finders. The Monks....were just...there....ah, Monks kind of sucked..... Making the classes balance removes the uniqueness of them. As I already stated, Wizards and Warlocks can do what Clerics can do and Clerics can do what Wizards and Warlocks do, so really, by making this possible, you don't NEED to have a Cleric AND a Wizard, you just need a Cleric or a Wizard. That...ain't....right.... To be honest, bards are generally lousy, especially in the lower levels. If any class needed help with... everything, it was definitely the bard. P.S. Go try a monk with Vow of Poverty. It will become broken in a heartbeat. |
|
|
|
Post by lockedontarget on May 26, 2009 0:01:32 GMT -5
Oh, another thing I don't like about 4th Ed is how it did balance all the classes. That is lame and a cop out. A Bard should NOT be on balanced with a Fighter or Barbarian, for example. The Barbarians and Fighters were the tanks, the Paladins and Clerics were the Healers/Undead killers, the Druids were the Summoners, the Wizards and Warlocks were the long range, and the Rangers and Rogues were the agile fighters and trap/track finders. The Monks....were just...there....ah, Monks kind of sucked..... Making the classes balance removes the uniqueness of them. As I already stated, Wizards and Warlocks can do what Clerics can do and Clerics can do what Wizards and Warlocks do, so really, by making this possible, you don't NEED to have a Cleric AND a Wizard, you just need a Cleric or a Wizard. That...ain't....right.... Are you kidding? Balance is nothing but a good thing. Having spellcasters be gods while the fighter-types get more and more useless is anti-fun. 4th still has party roles. And your allegation that everyone does the same things is completely false and makes me wonder if you've played or even read the rules properly. A wizard can not fill in for a cleric and vice-versa. The wizard can't do as much pure damage as the fighter, but the fighter can't attack tons of enemies at once like a wizard can. The classes still have their specialties. They may all follow the same level-up pattern and the powers for every class may have the same mechanics, but the classes are definately NOT the same. If anything, this was a problem in older editions, where a high-level spellcaster can pretty much fill ANY role. The great thing about fourth is that every class is equally useful in combat at all levels. They are not useful in the exact same ways, but they are equally useful. |
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on May 26, 2009 0:08:17 GMT -5
Oh, another thing I don't like about 4th Ed is how it did balance all the classes. That is lame and a cop out. A Bard should NOT be on balanced with a Fighter or Barbarian, for example. The Barbarians and Fighters were the tanks, the Paladins and Clerics were the Healers/Undead killers, the Druids were the Summoners, the Wizards and Warlocks were the long range, and the Rangers and Rogues were the agile fighters and trap/track finders. The Monks....were just...there....ah, Monks kind of sucked..... Making the classes balance removes the uniqueness of them. As I already stated, Wizards and Warlocks can do what Clerics can do and Clerics can do what Wizards and Warlocks do, so really, by making this possible, you don't NEED to have a Cleric AND a Wizard, you just need a Cleric or a Wizard. That...ain't....right.... Are you kidding? Balance is nothing but a good thing. Having spellcasters be gods while the fighter-types get more and more useless is anti-fun. 4th still has party roles. And your allegation that everyone does the same things is completely false and makes me wonder if you've played or even read the rules properly. A wizard can not fill in for a cleric and vice-versa. The wizard can't do as much pure damage as the fighter, but the fighter can't attack tons of enemies at once like a wizard can. The classes still have their specialties. They may all follow the same level-up pattern and the powers for every class may have the same mechanics, but the classes are definately NOT the same. If anything, this was a problem in older editions, where a high-level spellcaster can pretty much fill ANY role. The great thing about fourth is that every class is equally useful in combat at all levels. They are not useful in the exact same ways, but they are equally useful. But that shouldn't be done. For example, a Bard is NOT a combat class, like at all. They are more useful for outside of combat, so making them useful in combat whatsoever is pretty stupid. Also, I rather take the 3.5 classes than 4th Ed. At least I can still pick a Druid as a basic character class. |
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on May 26, 2009 0:30:26 GMT -5
Oh, another thing I don't like about 4th Ed is how it did balance all the classes. That is lame and a cop out. A Bard should NOT be on balanced with a Fighter or Barbarian, for example. The Barbarians and Fighters were the tanks, the Paladins and Clerics were the Healers/Undead killers, the Druids were the Summoners, the Wizards and Warlocks were the long range, and the Rangers and Rogues were the agile fighters and trap/track finders. The Monks....were just...there....ah, Monks kind of sucked..... Making the classes balance removes the uniqueness of them. As I already stated, Wizards and Warlocks can do what Clerics can do and Clerics can do what Wizards and Warlocks do, so really, by making this possible, you don't NEED to have a Cleric AND a Wizard, you just need a Cleric or a Wizard. That...ain't....right.... To be honest, bards are generally lousy, especially in the lower levels. If any class needed help with... everything, it was definitely the bard. P.S. Go try a monk with Vow of Poverty. It will become broken in a heartbeat. I think you confused the bard with the fighter.  |
|
|
|
Post by Gopher Mod on May 26, 2009 0:46:12 GMT -5
To be honest, bards are generally lousy, especially in the lower levels. If any class needed help with... everything, it was definitely the bard. P.S. Go try a monk with Vow of Poverty. It will become broken in a heartbeat. I think you confused the bard with the fighter. Fighters are decent in combat. Bards in 3.5 should never be in combat, or used period. Heck, I've never really seen a bard used well in combat. Ever. |
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on May 26, 2009 0:49:47 GMT -5
I think you confused the bard with the fighter. Fighters are decent in combat. Bards in 3.5 should never be in combat, or used period. Heck, I've never really seen a bard used well in combat. Ever. They have a Lute...... Yeah....I couldn't say that with a straight face... Bards suck. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopher Mod on May 26, 2009 0:51:11 GMT -5
Fighters are decent in combat. Bards in 3.5 should never be in combat, or used period. Heck, I've never really seen a bard used well in combat. Ever. They have a Lute...... Yeah....I couldn't say that with a straight face... Bards suck. Indeed they do. BTW, do you know Vow of Poverty is? |
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on May 26, 2009 0:52:27 GMT -5
Fighters are decent in the really low levels, but that's about it. I don't know why anyone would want to stick with them beyond 2 when they could just go into something better, beyond purely roleplaying/flavor reasons. Even with that in mind, Tome of Battle was pretty much the final nail in the coffin for 3.5 Fighter as Warblade in particular was a similar flavor concept to Fighter, but better in just about every single way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on May 26, 2009 0:55:08 GMT -5
Fighters are decent in the really low levels, but that's about it. I don't know why anyone would want to stick with them beyond 2 when they could just go into something better, beyond purely roleplaying/flavor reasons. Even with that in mind, Tome of Battle was pretty much the final nail in the coffin for 3.5 Fighter as Warblade in particular was a similar flavor concept to Fighter, but better in just about every single way. I only took Fighter to become a War Priest. To be a War Priest you NEED to have levels in Fighter and Cleric. And it pays off soooo much. Every single weapon I had had multiple strikes and had some awesome Criticals. |
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on May 26, 2009 0:59:57 GMT -5
What book was War Priest in? If I had to guess, it'd be Complete Warrior or Divine.
BTW, Koda, check out Tome of Battle if you haven't already. Slipped my mind that the writers of the book were inspired by games like Soulcalibur and Final Fantasy for the ideas behind the book. And it's just a really cool book in general. One of my favorites of all the 3.5 supplements (and good lord there are a lot of them).
|
|
Goldenbane
Hank Scorpio
THE G.D. Goldenbane
Posts: 7,331
|
Post by Goldenbane on May 26, 2009 1:07:43 GMT -5
[ Without the alignment system, seriously fantastic stories, such as the rise and fall of Raistlin or Darth Vader can no longer take place. Are you really going to be as shocked and saddened by a character who was never officially "good" to begin with, suddenly start being evil? This is ridiculous. Not having an alignment system in the mechanics of the game does not remove the concept of good and evil. An evil character is still evil, a good character is still good. No, it really isn't. Without an alignment system, what's keeping the players from all just becoming a bunch of "Chaotic neutral" jerks? I see this happen in nonalignement/"punish you for being evil" games far too often: Adventure 1: "I'm so happy! My character is a great guy, I'm going to save that orphan!" Adventure 2: "I'm still happy, man, life is going great! My character is not only a great guy, but a beloved hero as well! I walk grandma across the street!" Adventure 3: "f***! My f***ing girlfriend f***ing broke up with me, I had a f***ing fight with my f***ing boss, I'm f***ing late on my rent...I rob, rape, and murder that shoemaker!! What? I'm pissed off, and even though my guy has never EVER acted in that way before, it's not like there's some...pft...alignment system keeping me in check or anything! I'm going to kill the shoemaker's wife and young baby too...vent some of my real life ADAMANTIUM RAGE! I AM A MAHN!" Yes, the DM now gets to try to see if the "authorities" catch the guy/figure out he did it, and now the DM has to deal with all this other crap that he had, in no way, prepared for his game. With the alignment system, the DM can at least warn the angry player "If you do this, it goes against everything your character believes in..." and hopefully get the player to think twice about his actions. If the player still insists on carrying his deeds out, now the DM has a ton of "anti alignment" spells and such he can smash the player with. |
|
Goldenbane
Hank Scorpio
THE G.D. Goldenbane
Posts: 7,331
|
Post by Goldenbane on May 26, 2009 1:11:32 GMT -5
What book was War Priest in? If I had to guess, it'd be Complete Warrior or Divine. BTW, Koda, check out Tome of Battle if you haven't already. Slipped my mind that the writers of the book were inspired by games like Soulcalibur and Final Fantasy for the ideas behind the book. And it's just a really cool book in general. One of my favorites of all the 3.5 supplements (and good lord there are a lot of them). Oh!! I loved tome of battle! I did feel that casters were too powerful at high levels in the game, and I feel like tome really picked up the fighting classes a bunch! In Pathfinder, Cooke has already supplimented a great deal of these rules for the fighter (at least, he did in the Book of Experiemental Might). I'm really glad that clerics and druids got picked up so much, moving from 2nd to 3rd edition. They went from worthless "heal me" slaves into possibly the meanest classes in the game. |
|
|
|
Post by lockedontarget on May 26, 2009 1:21:50 GMT -5
Are you kidding? Balance is nothing but a good thing. Having spellcasters be gods while the fighter-types get more and more useless is anti-fun. 4th still has party roles. And your allegation that everyone does the same things is completely false and makes me wonder if you've played or even read the rules properly. A wizard can not fill in for a cleric and vice-versa. The wizard can't do as much pure damage as the fighter, but the fighter can't attack tons of enemies at once like a wizard can. The classes still have their specialties. They may all follow the same level-up pattern and the powers for every class may have the same mechanics, but the classes are definately NOT the same. If anything, this was a problem in older editions, where a high-level spellcaster can pretty much fill ANY role. The great thing about fourth is that every class is equally useful in combat at all levels. They are not useful in the exact same ways, but they are equally useful. But that shouldn't be done. For example, a Bard is NOT a combat class, like at all. They are more useful for outside of combat, so making them useful in combat whatsoever is pretty stupid. Also, I rather take the 3.5 classes than 4th Ed. At least I can still pick a Druid as a basic character class. Druid is in the PH2. And the bard is an important support class in combat. They don't do the big damage, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't play an important role. Every class should be useful in combat. No one ever picks the bard because they suck. They shouldn't continue to suck just because that's been the status quo up until now. 4th actually made an effort to make them a class people might want to take, and that is without doubt a good thing. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Striving for good balance makes it a more fun experience for all, keeps players from feeling useless, and reduces powergaming. |
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on May 26, 2009 1:28:54 GMT -5
But that shouldn't be done. For example, a Bard is NOT a combat class, like at all. They are more useful for outside of combat, so making them useful in combat whatsoever is pretty stupid. Also, I rather take the 3.5 classes than 4th Ed. At least I can still pick a Druid as a basic character class. Druid is in the PH2. And the bard is an important support class in combat. They don't do the big damage, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't play an important role. Every class should be useful in combat. No one ever picks the bard because they suck. They shouldn't continue to suck just because that's been the status quo up until now. 4th actually made an effort to make them a class people might want to take, and that is without doubt a good thing. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Striving for good balance makes it a more fun experience for all, keeps players from feeling useless, and reduces powergaming. Well players wouldn't feel useless if they didn't pick Bard in the first place. There, problem solved. Or hell, if they were going to remove a class from the basic character classes, it should've been the Bard. |
|
