D&D 5e has failed

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Voss
Prince
Posts: 3912
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Voss »

phlapjackage wrote:
Overpowered fireball...hahahaha

Speaking of alignment, wouldn't that have been a great choice for the promised "modularity" aspect of 5E? Main rules have no alignment (or alignment only as fluff), and then give sub-rules for playing with alignment. Or vice-versa. Fucker.
No. Alignments are bad enough without giving people even more pointless shit to argue about.
User avatar
Occluded Sun
Duke
Posts: 1044
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 6:15 pm

Post by Occluded Sun »

Ken and Robin Talk About Stuff (the podcast from Ken Hite and Robin D. Laws) recently addressed this... and their conclusion was that 5e has been a smashing success.

Really, I'm not sure why this thread is stickied.
"Most men are of no more use in their lives but as machines for turning food into excrement." - Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci
Axebird
Master
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:51 am

Post by Axebird »

Occluded Sun wrote:Ken and Robin Talk About Stuff (the podcast from Ken Hite and Robin D. Laws) recently addressed this... and their conclusion was that 5e has been a smashing success.

Really, I'm not sure why this thread is stickied.
This thread isn't stickied. And 5e blows ass and definitely hasn't rebooted D&D's relevance or whatever it was supposed to do.
User avatar
Occluded Sun
Duke
Posts: 1044
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 6:15 pm

Post by Occluded Sun »

You're right: it's not stickied.
"Most men are of no more use in their lives but as machines for turning food into excrement." - Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci
User avatar
virgil
King
Posts: 6339
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by virgil »

Occluded Sun wrote:... and their conclusion was that 5e has been a smashing success
By what metric?
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Ken Hite and Robin Laws are coming from the perspective of wanting to get hired by WotC to do writing projects. They aren't running a game store or a distributor network.

Robin Laws talked up 4th edition D&D while he was in a position to maybe get work writing for it (which of course, he did do), but of course 4th edition D&D was actually more serious of a failure than any of us expected at the time. I'm not really sure why Robin Laws saying that 5th edition D&D was a smashing success and citing no sales figures at all on a podcast would be considered evidence of much of anything.

-Username17
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

New Yorker has an article about D&D resurrecting, but I think it's more tabletop games in general than specifically 5e

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultu ... nd-dragons
Mord
Knight-Baron
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:25 am

Post by Mord »

The only way I could think of to describe 5e as a success is that it's put the latest major 3.x clone under WotC's control again. Pathfinder is 8 years old at this point and Paizo has continually delayed on releasing PF 2. For the moment, WotC has regained the initiative in producing shitty derivatives of a design old enough to drive.

There's a lot of buzz about 5e in surprisingly mainstream sources, though with so little content available I'm sure that doesn't translate into much by way of sales. I'm kind of disappointed that WotC has stolen a march on Paizo and is now sitting on its thumbs. As long experience has taught, you don't actually need quality design work to build a juggernaut if you happen to catch the zeitgeist (White Wolf). This could be an opportunity to actually grow the tabletop RPG market, but it seems like the corporate overlords have observed the present tiny size of the market and decided it's not worth the investment.
Voss
Prince
Posts: 3912
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Voss »

Paizo is going to keep farming their fanbase with multiple monthly splats until their will breaks.

Which given the enthusiasm for Ultimate Wilderness (featuring a new shapeshifter class which is basically a druid that gives up spells and animal companion and still doesn't get wildshape right away), means they've got their bitches on lockdown.


Starfinder is an interesting look at a possible direction for pathfinder 2, and it's characterized by a couple things:

- fucking the economy sideways with item levels and 'this tall to ride' bullshit

- basically failing at genre emulation

-ditching iterative attacks (yay?) for a full attack that lets you attack twice at -4/-4, with some classes getting three or four attacks at higher levels, and mitigating the penalty to -3/-3.

- tighter action economy. You get a move, standard and swift, or a full. If you use your swift action, you can't full attack. This makes for weird consequences, as hand swapping for two handed grips is a swift action. (RAW reloading fucks you so very hard)

-weird damage scaling, both by item level and a level based damage bonus, but the item levels where damage scaling changes are so weird (basically 7th, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, with some variation among the absurd plethora of weapon types), that it basically only matters once or twice in a normal campaign.

- even more hit point bloat. Yes, really. Because so many of them worked on SW Saga or SW d20, they brought back stamina/wounds(vitality) as a divide again. But this time you get HP and Stamina Points every level. So a 10th level soldier has 70 +con mod*10 SP, 70 HP + 2, 4 or 6 bonus hp at 1st level from race for... some reason.

- even more bad math. DCs scale up to the 60s and 70s at high level, for no apparent reason. Getting an upgraded ship makes it harder to accomplish things like scanning and piloting, to the point of becoming nigh-impossible.

- fuckery with ability score advancement- take +2 to 4 scores every 5 levels. But only +1 if they're 16 or higher.

- maintain shitty Paizo feats that do little or nothing. To the point that taking weapon proficiency and weapon specialization in not-pistols is pretty much mandatory for every class, because pistols suck, and only get half-level bonus to damage. Oh, and the standard saving throw boosters. Those are largely the only feats worth taking.

-spam out some more boring races, even while the basic races are still there, and actually more prevalent.

- they did actually come up with the best attribute generation system I've seen for a d20 game. Optional method: Quick Picks, fuck racial bonuses entirely, and just start with 18/14/11/10/10/10 or 16/16/11/10/10/10 or 14/14/14/11/10/10.

Fast and effective at different approaches to starting characters. Keep in mind at level 5, you get 4 +2s to assign (or +1 if 16+)
Yes, that odd number is weird. There is kinda a reason for it, but it's stupid and almost entirely meaningless for anything that isn't a feat prereq.

This would be more interesting, except they immediately banned it from 'society' play, effectively de-legitimizing it.

-they ditched bonus class archetypes and traits. For something else, sadly. Themes give you a pile of random bonuses (and that stray +1 to a stat), but aren't very interesting. Archetypes are universal, and there are only a couple in the book, and terrible. Basically you set class features on fire based on your class, and fill in the new stuff. In practice, this is awful, because some classes can ditch random crap that they don't care about, but other classes have to ditch meaningful abilities, or, in the case of spellcasters, a scaling spell (always highest level), which is fucked up, as no one else pays a scaling penalty.


----
Anyway, take that as a list of design directions they're looking at.

But maybe not, since they published Starfinder and the lead designer for it left basically the next day. :rofl:
Last edited by Voss on Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Archmage Joda
Knight
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:30 pm

Post by Archmage Joda »

Voss wrote:Paizo is going to keep farming their fanbase with multiple monthly splats until their will breaks.

Which given the enthusiasm for Ultimate Wilderness (featuring a new shapeshifter class which is basically a druid that gives up spells and animal companion and still doesn't get wildshape right away)
What? Fucking What? They finally get around to a shapeshifter class (a kind of character I would love to play, but pathfinder's existing options leave me feeling rather unenthused), and they don't even get to shapeshift out the gate? That's just....<devolves into incoherent ranting nonsense>.

I didn't even know they were making such a thing and I'm already done with it.
User avatar
Hiram McDaniels
Knight
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 5:54 am

Post by Hiram McDaniels »

Voss wrote: Starfinder is an interesting look at a possible direction for pathfinder 2, and it's characterized by a couple things:

- fucking the economy sideways with item levels and 'this tall to ride' bullshit

- basically failing at genre emulation

-ditching iterative attacks (yay?) for a full attack that lets you attack twice at -4/-4, with some classes getting three or four attacks at higher levels, and mitigating the penalty to -3/-3.

- tighter action economy. You get a move, standard and swift, or a full. If you use your swift action, you can't full attack. This makes for weird consequences, as hand swapping for two handed grips is a swift action. (RAW reloading fucks you so very hard)

-weird damage scaling, both by item level and a level based damage bonus, but the item levels where damage scaling changes are so weird (basically 7th, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, with some variation among the absurd plethora of weapon types), that it basically only matters once or twice in a normal campaign.

- even more hit point bloat. Yes, really. Because so many of them worked on SW Saga or SW d20, they brought back stamina/wounds(vitality) as a divide again. But this time you get HP and Stamina Points every level. So a 10th level soldier has 70 +con mod*10 SP, 70 HP + 2, 4 or 6 bonus hp at 1st level from race for... some reason.

- even more bad math. DCs scale up to the 60s and 70s at high level, for no apparent reason. Getting an upgraded ship makes it harder to accomplish things like scanning and piloting, to the point of becoming nigh-impossible.

- fuckery with ability score advancement- take +2 to 4 scores every 5 levels. But only +1 if they're 16 or higher.

- maintain shitty Paizo feats that do little or nothing. To the point that taking weapon proficiency and weapon specialization in not-pistols is pretty much mandatory for every class, because pistols suck, and only get half-level bonus to damage. Oh, and the standard saving throw boosters. Those are largely the only feats worth taking.

-spam out some more boring races, even while the basic races are still there, and actually more prevalent.

- they did actually come up with the best attribute generation system I've seen for a d20 game. Optional method: Quick Picks, fuck racial bonuses entirely, and just start with 18/14/11/10/10/10 or 16/16/11/10/10/10 or 14/14/14/11/10/10.

Fast and effective at different approaches to starting characters. Keep in mind at level 5, you get 4 +2s to assign (or +1 if 16+)
Yes, that odd number is weird. There is kinda a reason for it, but it's stupid and almost entirely meaningless for anything that isn't a feat prereq.

This would be more interesting, except they immediately banned it from 'society' play, effectively de-legitimizing it.

-they ditched bonus class archetypes and traits. For something else, sadly. Themes give you a pile of random bonuses (and that stray +1 to a stat), but aren't very interesting. Archetypes are universal, and there are only a couple in the book, and terrible. Basically you set class features on fire based on your class, and fill in the new stuff. In practice, this is awful, because some classes can ditch random crap that they don't care about, but other classes have to ditch meaningful abilities, or, in the case of spellcasters, a scaling spell (always highest level), which is fucked up, as no one else pays a scaling penalty.


----
Anyway, take that as a list of design directions they're looking at.

But maybe not, since they published Starfinder and the lead designer for it left basically the next day. :rofl:
Why do they insist on punishing multiple attacks? Attrition is already a sucker's game in 3E, so why compound it further with "fuck you, Johnny Swordjock" rules?
The most dangerous game is man. The most entertaining game is Broadway Puppy Ball. The most weird game is Esoteric Bear.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Hiram wrote:Why do they insist on punishing multiple attacks?
3rd Edition D&D Cargo Cultism.

3e gave out penalties for multiple attacks. 3e was the best edition. Therefore everything Paizo does has to give penalties for multiple attacks. It's really that simple.

3e did that as an answer to 2nd edition AD&D where monster hit points were much lower and fighter offensive output was very much more relevant. In that system, there were various things you could do to squeeze out extra attacks (weapon specialization, TWF, and the like) and these options were dramatically superior to other options available to characters with similar amounts of experience points. It also encouraged mixed-level parties and the levels you got extra attacks just made the challenges you could face be virtually unrecognizable.

And in early testing, it seemed like an idea that wasn't terrible. A 6th level Fighter was obviously better than a 5th level Fighter, but the 5th level Fighter could still compete because the 6th level Fighter had to take a full round action to get the extra attack and it was at -5. And higher levels were never tested at all, so the basic worthlessness of the -10 and complete worthlessness of the -15 attacks never actually registered to the 3e authors.

In retrospect of course, there was enough hit point bloat in 3rd edition (and even more in 3.5) that Fighters weren't really relevant at levels 6+ anyway, and restrictions on extra attacks just put the boot in on an already prostrate archetype.

But here it is, 17 years later, and Paizils won't admit that was an error because heavens forbid they actually do some design work or make anything new or good.

-Username17
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

The Trailblazer D&D3.5 supplement that came out right after Pathfinder just had iterative attacks as...

lvl 6: -2/-2
lvl 11: -1/-1
lvl 16: 0/0

They said average damage output increased by 15% except for edge cases of super high AC monsters.

When I heard Starfinder had adopted a system to that I was interested, then I saw the large penalties they attached.

Starfinder doing the MMO thing of "This is a lvl 10 sword, it does more damage but is lvl10" is odd
But maybe not, since they published Starfinder and the lead designer for it left basically the next day. ROFL
Wonder if there's a story behind that.

Well at least it's inspiriation to go work on our own heartbreakers
Last edited by OgreBattle on Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:45 am, edited 4 times in total.
MGuy
Prince
Posts: 4774
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:18 am
Location: Indiana

Post by MGuy »

I don't think PF wants to make big moves. 5e just gave up and limited everyone's options while refusing to write real rules for the bulk of what happens in the game and PF doesn't want to make anything too different that might upset people. I don't keep up with the constant material they put out but I still get people telling me monks and summoners are OP. I really think that the victory 5e has is being the accepted 'normal' ttrpg. Most people getting into the hobby for one reason or another will be starting with 5e and I've mysteriously been meeting a significant number of people who have just gotten into the hobby within the last year or two.
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
If you want a game modded right you have to mod it yourself.
Stubbazubba
Knight-Baron
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 6:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Stubbazubba »

There's a definite increase in the hobby's mainstream visibility. That probably has to do with the rise of streaming platforms and the mainstreaming of nerd culture than it does with any particular virtue of this edition. That being said, 5e's oversimplification is probably more amenable to new player acquisition. Whether it has the depth to keep engaging new people for years to come and create a long tail for the edition is, euphemistically, yet to be seen.
Voss
Prince
Posts: 3912
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Voss »

Archmage Joda wrote:
Voss wrote:Paizo is going to keep farming their fanbase with multiple monthly splats until their will breaks.

Which given the enthusiasm for Ultimate Wilderness (featuring a new shapeshifter class which is basically a druid that gives up spells and animal companion and still doesn't get wildshape right away)
What? Fucking What? They finally get around to a shapeshifter class (a kind of character I would love to play, but pathfinder's existing options leave me feeling rather unenthused), and they don't even get to shapeshift out the gate? That's just....<devolves into incoherent ranting nonsense>.

I didn't even know they were making such a thing and I'm already done with it.
Yeah. They get the ability to make claws at level one, and eventually they 'scale,' you know, like monk weapons. (So you know, buy a greatsword and use that til level 12 or so)

But instead of being Beornlings or were cheetahs, they've decided what people want is to be is vaguely Aztec chicken claw lady (there are already pictures of the 'iconic')

@ogrebattle- I honestly don't think there is a story. It was presented as moving on to do novels and his own shit. But it does give the whole project a taste of fire and forget. (Though some of that is QA issues as well, lots of editing issues, things left out and wacky rules relics that had to be hit with clarifications immediately
Last edited by Voss on Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
nockermensch
Duke
Posts: 1898
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:11 pm
Location: Rio: the Janeiro

Post by nockermensch »

Stubbazubba wrote:There's a definite increase in the hobby's mainstream visibility. That probably has to do with Stranger Things.
There, I fixed it for you.

The D&D revival has 0% to do with Mike Mearls competence and 100% with D&D entering a sweet pop-culture nostalgia window.

Actually, you could give some kind of deranged props for Mearls for creating an editon that's made of vapor and shit, exactly as 80s D&D was. So 40 year old people returning to D&D after seeing the chaotic MTP game the Stranger Things kids play, will be delighted to find a product that actually delivers the same lack of rules and requires the same amount of mind caulk to work as the shit they remember playing after school.

Of course, most of these people will then realize that they're too old to play a shitty game and look for another hobby, but maybe a PHB or 2 has been sold in this process. In other words, I don't think there will be a proper renascence of D&D play without an edition that actually works. But the current one is good to scam people feeling nostalgic.
@ @ Nockermensch
Koumei wrote:After all, in Firefox you keep tabs in your browser, but in SovietPutin's Russia, browser keeps tabs on you.
Mord wrote:Chromatic Wolves are massively under-CRed. Its "Dood to stone" spell-like is a TPK waiting to happen if you run into it before anyone in the party has Dance of Sack or Shield of Farts.
User avatar
Previn
Knight-Baron
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 2:40 pm

Post by Previn »

Voss wrote:Starfinder is an interesting look at a possible direction for pathfinder 2, and it's characterized by a couple things:

...

But maybe not, since they published Starfinder and the lead designer for it left basically the next day. :rofl:
I was going to do a review of Starfinder since no-one was talking about it, but there is literally so much wrong with it thematically and mechanically that it's just too overwhelming to even try and review.

Basically think of everything you can that's been wrong mechanically in some edition of D&D and Starfinder does it in some way, with the exception that arcane casters now actually do suck. Next take all the sci-fi and throw it out as completely not being considered for how the setting works and pretend that fantasy tropes have a place in a sci-fi future.
Voss
Prince
Posts: 3912
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Voss »

Previn wrote:
Voss wrote:Starfinder is an interesting look at a possible direction for pathfinder 2, and it's characterized by a couple things:

...

But maybe not, since they published Starfinder and the lead designer for it left basically the next day. :rofl:
I was going to do a review of Starfinder since no-one was talking about it, but there is literally so much wrong with it thematically and mechanically that it's just too overwhelming to even try and review.

Basically think of everything you can that's been wrong mechanically in some edition of D&D and Starfinder does it in some way, with the exception that arcane casters now actually do suck. Next take all the sci-fi and throw it out as completely not being considered for how the setting works and pretend that fantasy tropes have a place in a sci-fi future.
Except for the caster thing*, I had exactly the same reaction. Its 520 pages of suck, the same old mistakes and baffling, baffling setting decisions that make genre emulation fucking impossible.

You know how, in most sci-fi settings, there are secrets and wonders out there somewhere? Well, not in Starfinder. Everything is all piled into the home system in a bizarre and ineffectual manner. Doomsday cults? Check. Doomsday cults fighting doomsday cults? Check- to the point that the High Priest of Nyarlathotep is considered a goddamn hero for fighting the Even More Forgotten Ancienter Elder Things, on the local equivalent of Pluto, because reasons.

The drow have an evil megacorp the next planet inward, the not!hanar are in the gas giant after that, the elves and the not!andorians (a not-new player race) share not!Venus, and it's all derivative tropes shitting all over everything.

The only thing not in system are the Gorn/Klingons, who have their own empire vaguely nearby, and the mutated tyranids that are self-aware and take their children into battle in cans on their belt, because... they like seeing them die, I guess.


*I actually don't mind the magic classes being toned down to 6th level casters at all. Except for the related things they fucked up.

Like claiming that the new scaling spell focus feat (+1 to DC, +2 at 8th and +3 at 15th or something) somehow 'fixes' the math problems with spell DC. Surprise: looking at monster stat blocks and spell DC and save progressions (which are exactly the same), it fixes nothing. Actually breaks it a little more. As a bonus, technomancers get the feat for free, only mystics actually take it in some fashion. So... instead of just tweaking the math, its a feat tax on one class.

Or the mystic class in execution. One of the things they claimed was the wanted casters to have class features and be more interesting when they weren't casting spells. Most classes have a bunch of choices they can make to take abilities, specialize in certain things and just generally be interesting. Mystic doesn't. They take one of a dozen themes, and all their choices are locked in (and the theme abilities are almost universally shit). Outside of their theme, they also get a one use lay on hands that's actually worse than the paladin version, and they're all telepathic, because... apparently every mystic has to be a healer, and their choice of good spells is essentially the mind-affecting save or dies.

So they're less interesting, less powerful clerics. In space. Who mostly need to burn at least two feats on real guns so they can actually contribute in some fashion.

Speaking of mystics (and therefor clerics), the gods of pathfinder have a slightly different lineup (like Nyarlathotep), because fuck you that's why. But they're apparently still a big deal and the book burns a lot of space on them. It never actually justifies it though, why anyone would give a shit about these terrible, largely silent and indifferent gods is never explained.

Particularly since magic is now all magic. No arcane/divine split, everything is just magic. Except the technomancer pretty much has exclusive claim to the wizard spells and the mystic has exclusive claim to the cleric spells. So despite there explicitly NOT being a split, there is totally a split.
Mystics even have associated deities for all their themes (and the theme of mind rape is reserved for the ultimate good goddess and a couple evil gods)


Basically if you really want Star Wars with the serial numbers filed off meets pop culture sci-fi meets generic kitchen sink fantasy, Starfinder is totally your game. If you can deal with a handful of good ideas (most of which are: let's make the soldier (fighter) better by giving it two good saves and actual class abilities) buried under piles of shit, typos and nitpicking.

Odds are you don't want that, though. You probably want a strong setting with rules that actually fit it.
Last edited by Voss on Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

Here's the thing about magic in a sci-fi setting: it actually has to be MORE impressive than it would be in a fantasy setting. Any kitchen sink sci-fi setting worth its salt will have shit like blaster pistols, genetic engineering, FTL shuttles, etc. Shit like Polymorph and Teleport are game changers in D&D, but they're literally a bad episode of Star Trek: VOY.

Generally, if you tone down what magic can do in a sci-fi setting, either you end up ignoring it entirely (like in Rogue One) or you end up toning down the setting to match the cool of the magic (like in prequel Star Wars).
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.
User avatar
Dogbert
Duke
Posts: 1133
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:17 am
Contact:

Post by Dogbert »

Previn wrote:I was going to do a review of Starfinder since no-one was talking about it, but there is literally so much wrong with it thematically and mechanically that it's just too overwhelming to even try and review.
Here's your review:
Image
Image
Voss
Prince
Posts: 3912
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Voss »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Here's the thing about magic in a sci-fi setting: it actually has to be MORE impressive than it would be in a fantasy setting. Any kitchen sink sci-fi setting worth its salt will have shit like blaster pistols, genetic engineering, FTL shuttles, etc. Shit like Polymorph and Teleport are game changers in D&D, but they're literally a bad episode of Star Trek: VOY.

Generally, if you tone down what magic can do in a sci-fi setting, either you end up ignoring it entirely (like in Rogue One) or you end up toning down the setting to match the cool of the magic (like in prequel Star Wars).
The sad thing is that is kinda their explanation. Magic is toned down because it was industrialized. Somehow in the weird Gap thing (which wiped the memories of everything in the entire multiverse, except maybe the gods, but they're dicks so they won't talk about it. But it mind wiped archdevils and Aboleths as well, somehow), or before the weird Gap things, folks realized that they could just mass produce snap on attachments to make Holy or Flameburst weapons rather than enchanting them. So... they don't bother.

The big problem is it's the same setting as Pathfinder, just thousands of years later. And the mind wipe is shorter than the lifetime of several species (not to mention undead), so they have to force the audience to accept that not only that there aren't any 20th level wizards around any more but ALSO that no one in the universe cares, or even wants to be 20th level wizards anymore.

Just doing a completely different setting would have solved this huge problem. And given how minimal the setting work is, it's baffling that they didn't, because it's a huge pile of shit to swallow, even for their fan boys.
:bash:
Last edited by Voss on Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:24 am, edited 2 times in total.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Here's the thing about magic in a sci-fi setting: it actually has to be MORE impressive than it would be in a fantasy setting. Any kitchen sink sci-fi setting worth its salt will have shit like blaster pistols, genetic engineering, FTL shuttles, etc. Shit like Polymorph and Teleport are game changers in D&D, but they're literally a bad episode of Star Trek: VOY.

Generally, if you tone down what magic can do in a sci-fi setting, either you end up ignoring it entirely (like in Rogue One) or you end up toning down the setting to match the cool of the magic (like in prequel Star Wars).
A starting Mage in Shadowrun is like a 7th circle Wizard in Earthdawn. And you barely notice, because honestly it takes a lot of D&D style spells to match the basic abilities you have by owning a car, a gun, and a phone.

-Username17
FatR
Duke
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:36 am

Post by FatR »

FrankTrollman wrote:
A starting Mage in Shadowrun is like a 7th circle Wizard in Earthdawn. And you barely notice, because honestly it takes a lot of D&D style spells to match the basic abilities you have by owning a car, a gun, and a phone.

-Username17
Phantom Steed and Magic Missile are better than a car or a gun for most purposes, so the only stumbling block is phone - it is practically easier in DnD to murder people over large distances than to have an extended conversation with them.
FatR
Duke
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:36 am

Post by FatR »

I found myself incapable of finding any shits to give about specific mechanics of Starfinder and their failures after a cursory examination of the book revealed that it utterly fails at emulating or producing any sort of space setting, including - and particularly so - scif-fantasy space opera, people might actually want to play. There is no fucking space exploration in the boundless galaxy, almost everything is weirdly crumpled into the same star system. There is no grand and overarching conflict spanning the same galaxy. There is no variety of technicolor-skinned space babes to fuck, in fact, all the new races look rather ugly. And the parts of the system I looked over produce divide by zero results if you try to do something as basic as trying to strafe fools in your space fighter.

Basically it seems like even more of a square-based dungeoncrawl, what with power level and flexibility of PCs seemingly nerfed further and MMO-style equipment ladders, in a setting that is technically in space, but may as well not have been.
Last edited by FatR on Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply