YOU are in charge of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 3e...

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Sigil
Knight
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:17 am

Post by Sigil »

FrankTrollman wrote:What this implies is that you should pull a 2nd Edition AD&D trick, where only a few classes can be multiclassed. Say, you can multiclass "basic classes" like Warrior or Mage, but not "advanced classes" like Ranger or Necromancer. In this way, the number of multiclass combinations would remain manageable and a majority of things people would want to play would be something they could take right off the shelf and the people who wanted to be build-a-class special snowflakes could go do their thing without making chargen take forever for everyone.
FrankTrollman wrote:I can certainly imagine wanting to play a character that was part Berserker, part Illusionist. But it is a bad use of design space to have the player mix and match. And the reason it's a bad use of design space is resource management systems. The only balanced way to take some number of powers off the Illusionist List and some number of powers off the Berserker list is to have those abilities have resource costs that are transparent with each other. In short, you can let everyone mix and match classes or parts thereof if every class is a 4e D&D class with equal numbers of Encounter Powers or whatever the fuck, but that fucking sucks.
Given that the premise here is that we get to be in charge of a new edition and can, presumably, dictate the basic format of all future classes, do you think it would be beneficial to launch with a small number (3-4) of "Basic" classes alongside a much larger number of narrow "Advanced" classes, but then also mandate that every Advanced class have X number of features earmarked as a feature that can be taken at Y level as an alternate feature in a basic class? This would allow people playing basic classes to grab some of the flavor and mechanics from whatever hot new class is, but also allow you to filter out class features that are problematic (avoiding features that have resource schedules that aren't self contained, making sure certain types of feature are only selectable at the same level so they're exclusive, etc).

It doesn't seem like it would be much of a burden as long as this was done this from the very beginning.
User avatar
deaddmwalking
Prince
Posts: 3529
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am

Post by deaddmwalking »

When building a new class, you start by seeing if you can make the concept work with existing classes. Maybe an existing class with the right feat works... Maybe a level dip in another class works. If you find that you still can't get the concept to work, it's time to start deciding if a new class is the way to go.

Most of the time, your 'bandit' works by changing the skills of your Rogue class - it's a variant rather than a new class. If your hybrid is significantly weaker (or stronger) than other adjustments follow - sometimes making it its own base class.

The Ranger and Paladin show their DNA as early hybrids.

It's entirely possible to end up with 100 or more classes, but that's a lot to look at. If you have a dozen classes that can easily be mixed in various degrees, you're likely to have most of the play space covered. And when your Warrior/Rogue isn't pulling off 'Swashbuckler' - and you can't fix it with minor custimization via feat or skill options - only then is it time to look at a Swashbuckler class.
-This space intentionally left blank
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by PhoneLobster »

deaddmwalking wrote:And when your Warrior/Rogue isn't pulling off 'Swashbuckler' - and you can't fix it with minor custimization via feat or skill options - only then is it time to look at a Swashbuckler class.
When home brewing a new class (or not) for an existing system that's the correct process.

But when building a system from scratch? That not so much the point where you write a new Swashbuckler class, that's the point where you go back and ask what is wrong with Warrior and Rogue that not only can't you get Swashbuckler out of either you can't even get it out of both. Then you fix it.

And even though Swashbuckler is probably a rather poor example (since Warrior and/or Rogue REALLY should cover a lot of swashbuckler bases regardless) even if you squeeze in something a bit more specific like "Pirate" it is by far a superior system if a selection of available choices from available options for a warrior and/or rogue could get you there and you didn't need to ride the special bus of the tacked on "Pirate" class to do it.

And for fucks sake people aim for the superior system, at least TRY and design a system that doesn't rely on an endless supply of tacked on class patches to provide gamers with the options they want. Don't go in from the start actually intending to design "Class Bloat, the RPG".
Last edited by PhoneLobster on Wed Aug 24, 2016 2:22 am, edited 3 times in total.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

The swashbuckler in D&D3.PF seems to be an embodiment of everything the core mechanics of that edition (and previous ones) failed to deliver for 'mundane' melee types'

"I want my warrior to fight unarmored" well its a lot easier to get heavier armor than it is to raise your dex stat

"I want my warrior to be smart and charismatic" well those are largely dumpstats for warriors and it means less points to put into your accuracy, damage, hitpoints, evasiveness, etc.

"I want to fight with one 1h weapon" but greatweapons were just way better and TWF lets you double bonuses

"I want to swing from chandeliers and slide down railing" but the rules for that were vague and if anything told the DM to slap big skill penalties on you

"I want to be able to do a special cool thing every encounter" but you're a mundane and only magicians get special resource mechanics other than getting so mad you're tired.

These aren't things that are totally foreign to the concept of rogue and fighter in D&D, but they were overlooked so bandaid feats/PrC's/Classes were produced after the fact. But in a new edition they can be a core part of the game mechanics.

Look at D&D inspiration material like Conan and note that he goes unarmored while sneaking and buccaneering and fully armored while leading an army and it makes you wonder if "Armor guy", "less armor guy" and "no armor guy" is really something you want to be a rigid part of PC identity, or something that changes based on the situation so the Dragon Knight can strip to his aketon for sneaking and the dread pirate can wear a cuirass for a siege. I asked this question some months ago and there was a 2 page discussion: http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=54824
User avatar
JonSetanta
King
Posts: 5525
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: interbutts

Post by JonSetanta »

I want a STR Monk. Is it really that much to ask for?
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by PhoneLobster »

The whole thing where some classes get less armour and armour is the only path to a good defense score... is relatively workable?

But considering people want to have robed wizards and leather cat suit rogues and floofy blouse pirates and mostly naked barbarians, it's a bit of a dick move to say "yeah well all you guys get shit defenses".

In 3.x the wizard still had a path to reasonable defense by wearing a bunch of his spells instead of plate armour, but that sorta sucked because unless you got some pretty sweet loot your choice to wear wizard robes or not wasn't meaningful.

The barbarian was SUPPOSED to go the alternative defensive strategy of just being a damage sponge, but it wasn't actually good enough.

And if you were a dex rogue you were just worse.

And if you wanted to be a barbarian rogue in nothing but small pants or a pirate fighter that liked floofy blouses and ornamental leather pants? Well screw you you just flat out get to suck.

Ideally you game has diverse paths to viable defense strategies and makes sure that various common armour/fancy dress up time themes all get to have at least one such path to not sucking. Personally I would also suggest decoupling those from classes because why the hell shouldn't we have plate armour barbarians and robe wearing knights?

But then again in my own home brew system I went ahead and did diversely themed but equally viable defense themes in a full on points based system which of course means I'm a filthy pro-player choice heretic so what the hell do I know.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
User avatar
JonSetanta
King
Posts: 5525
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: interbutts

Post by JonSetanta »

I'd aim for big changes to 3.X Psionics.

At will everything, but a much smaller power selection at any one time, like 3+level, much less than Sorcs.

You pick your discipline and pretty much know mostly those powers such as Kinetic, Transport, Telepathic, or Metabolic to the exclusion of all else.
You get a smattering of the "generic" powers but you'd have to mostly focus on your discipline.
You pick another discipline at level 11.

You can meditate for an hour to change your power lineup once each day.

PSPs and PPs suck ass. I hate math and I hate tracking that battery of points every time I want to cast something, but it was still better than slots.

Metamagic feats (and metapsionic) would have to be restricted to the "Sudden" series where you can use them 3/day or whatever without an addition to the spell/power level. This would make them compatible with power point-less powers.
Last edited by JonSetanta on Wed Aug 24, 2016 5:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
rasmuswagner
Knight-Baron
Posts: 705
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 9:37 am
Location: Danmark

Post by rasmuswagner »

PhoneLobster wrote:Don't go in from the start actually intending to design "Class Bloat, the RPG".
Well, it's still supposed to be a business, right?
Every time you play in a "low magic world" with D&D rules (or derivates), a unicorn steps on a kitten and an orphan drops his ice cream cone.
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by PhoneLobster »

rasmuswagner wrote:
PhoneLobster wrote:Don't go in from the start actually intending to design "Class Bloat, the RPG".
Well, it's still supposed to be a business, right?
Little more than a convenient excuse for poor design that doesn't hold up to solid scrutiny.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

rasmuswagner wrote:
PhoneLobster wrote:Don't go in from the start actually intending to design "Class Bloat, the RPG".
Well, it's still supposed to be a business, right?
This absolutely. D&D is a game, but it also needs to keep selling books. Not only to slake the bottomless greed of the people who own the license, but also for the health of the community. If you're gonna get new blood into the hobby, D&D needs to get prominent shelf space. And D&D is only going to get prominent shelf space if it keeps selling. And it will only keep selling if there is more new stuff to buy.

You don't have to go as far as 4th edition D&D - where you could literally fill up 12 pages creating such options as specific as "like a Rogue, but uses a Longbow or an Ax" or "like a Wizard, but spells are "earth themed" and do physical damage and make physical barriers" in a new PHB or you could spend 4 pages in a Monster Manual to describe Orcish warriors using new weapons. And I don't even mean weapons that are new to the game, but simply weapons that Orc warriors hadn't been depicted as using in the previous Monster Manuals. Orcs can now use double dagger, trident and shield, heavy crossbow and light hammer, heavy flail, broadsword and shield, or falchion: four fucking pages. That was obscene, and you don't have to go remotely that far.

4e was designed to be so incredibly rigid, specific, and templated that a single person could write 150k word sourcebooks on their own in a month and keep doing it every month for ten years straight with no fear at all that they would accidentally cover the same ground as one of the other writers. That's ridiculous. And it's also unnecessary. nWoD was in its way the same, although their shovelware creation system was less "finely crafted" than "the natural endpoint of entropy in the creative process." You do need to keep cranking out material people need/want for the duration of the edition, but that's a finite amount of time and it is desirable that the reader does not immediately twig to the fact that they are being trolled. Restricting Rogues to just three weapons in the PHB so that you could produce "expansion" material that let you play a Rogue that uses a Morningstar is fucking offensive. But you do not have to go there. You don't have to go anywhere near there.

It is trivially easy to make an edition that is more succinct than 4e. But there's a lot of space between 4e's "we have been putting out a core book every month for two years straight and you're still on your fucking own if you want Gnolls who fight with swords." and 5e's "it's been two years and we haven't come out with a single real setting book or a single crunch book." The fact that both of these extremes involve D&D languishing on the vine isn't all that weird. But there are a lot of happy mediums in between that could keep an edition chugging along quite happily for the 8 years that pre-Pathfinder 3e variants trundled along for or even the 12 years that Dungeons and Dragons called itself "Advanced" before coming out with a 2nd edition.

It simply isn't difficult to come up with a sweet spot between 4e's mad shovelware engine and 5e's never produce anything and thus never fail by never trying model. Pretty much anything a sane person would even suggest would be between those extremes and also much better than either. You need to leave yourself 10 years of space for reasonable and stable expansion products, but that isn't a tall order. Your AD&D3 default setting should have large chunks of the map outlined but not filled in so you can write in your Maztica, Rokugan, and Al-Qadim style regional setting books. Your AD&D3 monster manual should reference power sources that player characters don't use in the PHB like Psionics, Shadow, and Magic of Blue so that there's clear space to write up new character types in later books without that being a massive retcon. And so on. But again and still, 10 years of 12 major releases a year before you jump ship to a newerest edition and do it all over again is perfectly plottable.

One thing I think is very much missing is a Google Earth for the fantasy world. The AD&D3 default campaign world should have a digital map that adventures and listed events and nouns from sourcebooks get pinned to that players can look at online. It should look like a 21st century global campaign world, and not like Nentir fucking Vale.

-Username17
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by PhoneLobster »

Shorter Frank. "Yes we should TOTALLY intend to make Class Bloat the RPG. Now let me spend a huge amount of text complaining about how fucking terrible that was last time it happened. But my version of doing the same thing wouldn't be that bad. For no reason."

Shorter Shorter Frank. "This time for sure!"
Last edited by PhoneLobster on Wed Aug 24, 2016 9:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
Omegonthesane
Prince
Posts: 3685
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:55 pm

Post by Omegonthesane »

Naturally, PL fails to mention the bit where Frank goes on about how the class bloat edition before 4e (and during and after 4e if you count Pathfinder) was commercially successful and well liked by the player base.
Kaelik wrote:Because powerful men get away with terrible shit, and even the public domain ones get ignored, and then, when the floodgates open, it turns out there was a goddam flood behind it.

Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath, Justin Bieber, shitmuffin
Mask_De_H
Duke
Posts: 1995
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:17 pm

Post by Mask_De_H »

Just put him on Ignore. Let him scream at senpai to notice him into the void forevermore.
FrankTrollman wrote: Halfling women, as I'm sure you are aware, combine all the "fun" parts of pedophilia without any of the disturbing, illegal, or immoral parts.
K wrote:That being said, the usefulness of airships for society is still transporting cargo because it's an option that doesn't require a powerful wizard to show up for work on time instead of blowing the day in his harem of extraplanar sex demons/angels.
Chamomile wrote: See, it's because K's belief in leaving generation of individual monsters to GMs makes him Chaotic, whereas Frank's belief in the easier usability of monsters pre-generated by game designers makes him Lawful, and clearly these philosophies are so irreconcilable as to be best represented as fundamentally opposed metaphysical forces.
Whipstitch wrote:You're on a mad quest, dude. I'd sooner bet on Zeus getting bored and letting Sisyphus put down the fucking rock.
User avatar
Josh_Kablack
King
Posts: 5318
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Online. duh

Post by Josh_Kablack »

Hrm...

Now I'm thinking that the first thing I would have to do were I to be put in charge of a D&D edition is to put the entire 'Den on ignore:


Yeah, you can't have a balanced game if you have open multiclassing and you have differing resource management schemes tied to classes. The deal here is to argue either:

That tying resource management schemes to classes is a better design decision than fully open multiclassing

OR

That fully open multiclassing is a better design decision than defining classes by their resource management schemes

OR

Some sort of implausible third way to thread the needle. "Balance is an illusion anyways"; "Only some classes should multiclass"; "Resource Management scheme X really can swap with Resource Management scheme Y without breaking balance"

*****************************************


Yeah, if you want to keep selling books you have to accept a significant amount of content bloat. The deal here is to argue either

That it makes for a better game if splatbook content is mainly things which are not classes (feats, equipment, spells, rules options, adventures, settings, etc).

OR

That it makes for a better game if splatbooks content includes quite a lot of new classes.

OR

Some sort of implausible third way. "D&D can be fine if it just sells Core Books"; "The real money is in the branding, the business better with Boardgame and Movie and TV and Playstation games than with books anyways"
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
User avatar
Ice9
Duke
Posts: 1568
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Ice9 »

A lot schemes, such as "no multiclassing, tons of classes instead" and "vertical slicing", run into the problem that then you have a ton of character building decisions up front and then jack shit later on. To me, that's lousy - it takes too long to make a character, and then leveling up is just following an already-charted course. Bad on both ends.

On the other hand, making big choices every level like open multiclassing and large feats often ends up in a situation where you have to plan things X levels in advance or end up sucking. Not really freedom to change either.

I wonder if "no multiclassing / vertical-split only, but you get to change your character's build every time you level up" would be a good solution.
User avatar
brized
Journeyman
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:45 pm

Post by brized »

Omegonthesane wrote:Naturally, PL fails to mention the bit where Frank goes on about how the class bloat edition before 4e (and during and after 4e if you count Pathfinder) was commercially successful and well liked by the player base.
And those were both open multiclassing systems...If that was such an irredeemably bad means of character building, why did D&D 3.X and Pathfinder commercially succeed rather than fail?
Tumbling Down wrote:
deaddmwalking wrote:I'm really tempted to stat up a 'Shadzar' for my game, now.
An admirable sentiment but someone beat you to it.
Mask_De_H
Duke
Posts: 1995
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:17 pm

Post by Mask_De_H »

brized wrote:
Omegonthesane wrote:Naturally, PL fails to mention the bit where Frank goes on about how the class bloat edition before 4e (and during and after 4e if you count Pathfinder) was commercially successful and well liked by the player base.
And those were both open multiclassing systems...If that was such an irredeemably bad means of character building, why did D&D 3.X and Pathfinder commercially succeed rather than fail?
Did you spend all your time not on this board huffing paint and/or taking unprotected chair shots? A product that is marketed well will be commercially successful regardless of the technical quality of the work. See: Suicide Squad.

This is doubly true for elfgames, where the audience is so used to eating shit, rules wise, that they enjoy the taste. At best, they know when something's shit, but know no better taste than their own shit.
FrankTrollman wrote: Halfling women, as I'm sure you are aware, combine all the "fun" parts of pedophilia without any of the disturbing, illegal, or immoral parts.
K wrote:That being said, the usefulness of airships for society is still transporting cargo because it's an option that doesn't require a powerful wizard to show up for work on time instead of blowing the day in his harem of extraplanar sex demons/angels.
Chamomile wrote: See, it's because K's belief in leaving generation of individual monsters to GMs makes him Chaotic, whereas Frank's belief in the easier usability of monsters pre-generated by game designers makes him Lawful, and clearly these philosophies are so irreconcilable as to be best represented as fundamentally opposed metaphysical forces.
Whipstitch wrote:You're on a mad quest, dude. I'd sooner bet on Zeus getting bored and letting Sisyphus put down the fucking rock.
Mechalich
Knight-Baron
Posts: 696
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 3:16 am

Post by Mechalich »

Josh_Kablack wrote: Yeah, if you want to keep selling books you have to accept a significant amount of content bloat. The deal here is to argue either

That it makes for a better game if splatbook content is mainly things which are not classes (feats, equipment, spells, rules options, adventures, settings, etc).

OR

That it makes for a better game if splatbooks content includes quite a lot of new classes.

OR

Some sort of implausible third way. "D&D can be fine if it just sells Core Books"; "The real money is in the branding, the business better with Boardgame and Movie and TV and Playstation games than with books anyways"
I think you want to split that difference. The game-buying public has two different factions: one that is mostly composed of players and is most interested in mechanical options for their PCs and one that is mostly composed of GMs and that's wants to embrace the craziness and getting setting material and fluff and books full of cool monsters they can use. The thing is the former group is much larger than the latter group and we know this because 3.X made a ton of money catering to players by introducing endless power creep and players option books while TSR went bankrupt catering to GMs by cranking out endless setting books.

That being said, producing books that present players with new options that don't either suck or horribly unbalance the game is challenging. It requires stuff like extensive playtesting and mathematical modeling. Spewing out new setting books requires nothing more than a modicum of coordination between a team of dudes cranking out fluff in their basements. So, I'd split the production line explicitly. Produce glossy, awesome hardcovers that are designed to lure in players to by books filled with class options and optional rule-systems and have intensive testing and a lot of quality assurance (and the best art you can get your hands on) to hit the print market while restricting the overwhelming majority of setting-focused material to digital purchases only, and instead just churn that out, maybe keep production high enough that you can get a subscription model going.

Also, because there is money in the branding, you want AD&D 3e to come with the launch of a new setting. Something with a lot of marketing behind it and ideally a video game tie-in that launches if not concurrently with the actual game, then very shortly thereafter.
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

I want a STR Monk. Is it really that much to ask for?
This brings up a good point, the mandatory attributes for certain classes. It's been brought up before in a bunch of previous threads but how about decoupling your stat array from your effectiveness in combat?

So instead of STR determining your punch accuracy and then having a bunch of bandaid feats for DEX, WIS, CHA, INT, etc. punchers, your class and level just tells you what your attack bonus is. Attributes are then largely for rolling skill, or maybe unlocking certain maneuvers if you really want to gate a STR monk from using DEX monk maneuvers.

But this could be one of those sacred cows that will lead to violated ape wailing on how versimilitubes are lost and it's become a vidyagame.

Another question is "How is magic presented?" There's a lot to be said on how every edition of D&D dedicates the majority chunk of the PHB to a giant list of spells. The much more compact and flexible Shadowrun spell list is brought up often as a counter example. We've had lots of discussions on this but I don't remember what threads it was under.

Related to that is "How are monster manual entries presented?" We all agree that 3e's "Monsters fill in the same blanks as PC" is the way to go while AD&D, 4e, and 5e are not to be emulated. And also "How are monsters built?" 'monster classes' is something we've talked about before. It'll be the monsters that give context to class abilities, we can't determine what's level appropriate without knowing what challenges the players are expected to face per level.
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by PhoneLobster »

OgreBattle wrote:mandatory attributes for certain classes. It's been brought up before in a bunch of previous threads but how about decoupling your stat array from your effectiveness in combat?
At that point you might as well just remove attributes. They're basically a pile of ass anyway.

But since that's something I've actually experimented with and had surprising success it's clearly verboten because sacred cows or something.

So if you want classes and attributes and you don't want their bad interactions you get to walk a VERY hard path design wise. Decoupling attributes from "actual interesting stuff your class does" may as well decouple them from the game, and the only option left is to TRY and either make ALL attributes somehow equally useful to ALL classes, or at least as close to that as you can manage to get it. Good luck with providing sufficient support for the Charisma Ranger and the Dexterity Druid.

Or you could just ask yourself why you keep dragging millstones like 3-18 base attributes and arbitrary class mechanics around your neck, but introspection and innovation really isn't what this ever ends up being about.
Last edited by PhoneLobster on Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
User avatar
virgil
King
Posts: 6339
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by virgil »

PhoneLobster wrote:But since that's something I've actually experimented with and had surprising success it's clearly verboten because sacred cows or something.
Oh shove off. The topic's been discussed before. Whatever success or failure you think you've made with your Timecube RPG means precisely jack.

In regards to an actual point, we can certainly decouple stats from combat. In several ways, it is an arbitrary level of differentiation that adds another potential failure point on the RNG. In other ways, removing attributes constrains every Hammerdin to have the same combat profile and makes it harder to tell whether Poison Ivy or Blue Beetle would win at arm-wrestling; and that's a question of priorities. As we better define attributes, the line between them and skills will become blurry if they're not connected to combat stats.
Last edited by virgil on Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
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!
User avatar
brized
Journeyman
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:45 pm

Post by brized »

Mask_De_H wrote:Did you spend all your time not on this board huffing paint and/or taking unprotected chair shots? A product that is marketed well will be commercially successful regardless of the technical quality of the work. See: Suicide Squad.
3.X's art direction and marketing were fucking awful. Pathfinder had comparatively good art direction, but it's unlikely they outspent 4E in marketing.
This is doubly true for elfgames, where the audience is so used to eating shit, rules wise, that they enjoy the taste. At best, they know when something's shit, but know no better taste than their own shit.
So why did 4E sell out of its initial print run and then rapidly die off, despite advertisements and ongoing celebrity games? Why didn't that happen to 3.X and especially to Pathfinder?
Last edited by brized on Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tumbling Down wrote:
deaddmwalking wrote:I'm really tempted to stat up a 'Shadzar' for my game, now.
An admirable sentiment but someone beat you to it.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

brized wrote:
Omegonthesane wrote:Naturally, PL fails to mention the bit where Frank goes on about how the class bloat edition before 4e (and during and after 4e if you count Pathfinder) was commercially successful and well liked by the player base.
And those were both open multiclassing systems...If that was such an irredeemably bad means of character building, why did D&D 3.X and Pathfinder commercially succeed rather than fail?
The direction of 3e D&D and Pathfinder in particular is to ditch open multiclassing. As more and more stuff got produced, the cream that rose to the top was the shit that let you bypass all that crap. You could play a Rogue/Wizard/Arcane Trickster or some fucking thing, but wouldn't you rather just play a Beguiler from level 1? Paizo doesn't even want you taking Prestige Classes, opting instead to classplode all over the place with archetypes and shit that let you get your specific character concept and minmaxing on from the start.

-Username17
User avatar
Ice9
Duke
Posts: 1568
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Ice9 »

FrankTrollman wrote:The direction of 3e D&D and Pathfinder in particular is to ditch open multiclassing.
They produced a lot of classes, but I don't think they moved away from multiclassing. ToB, for instance, had an attempt at fixing multiclassing-suckage. As did feats like Daring Outlaw, Tashatalora, etc.
Last edited by Ice9 on Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Ice9 wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:The direction of 3e D&D and Pathfinder in particular is to ditch open multiclassing.
They produced a lot of classes, but I don't think they moved away from multiclassing. ToB, for instance, had an attempt at fixing multiclassing-suckage. As did feats like Daring Outlaw, Tashatalora, etc.
3e content exploded in all directions. However, the shit thrown at the wall which stuck has been to move away from building character concepts out of class levels from different classes and towards having classes that did what they said on the side of the tin.

I mean, I can't even tell you what Tashatalora or Daring Outlaw even do. I assume from context that those are some of those crap "be less far behind on some of your scaling class features when you have two different specific classes" feats that got tried a few times. But I couldn't tell you what classes were being mixed by those, let alone what scaling features they let you mix and match levels and continue the progression of.

On the flip side, does anyone here not know what the 3.5 Beguiler is about? How about the Pathfinder classes like the Summoner or Inquisitor?

-Username17
Post Reply