Grunker
RPG Codex Ghost
Yeah it's a widespread thing sadly
Just remind me how many HP did a lvl6 wizard have in DA:O
Nice way to show how the Gateway tool is uselessThe Codex may have written SCL off, but the true fans on their forums are gearing up for some serious roleplaying
I am a paladin player. I always roll one named Aric, human. Kal is my paladin from Baldurs Gate saga. This time I will pick another name and roll a half-elf paladin. He will be the son of Kal and Aerie, her mother putted him in a magic slumber after Kal and her leave the Realms when he was barely 18 and now he wakes centuries later ready for SCL.
Based on the feedback i had here, I will roll a half-elf now since they make so great paladins too and it will be a nice way to connect both plots in my personal story.
Judging by that screen, this is going for DA2-style asymmetry where enemies have thousands of HP but only do single-to-double digit damage themselves.
Stop mincing words. My posts are apologetic. The problem is that you guys interpret every information about the game in the most negative way possible and that you are so certain about it. My inner balance-fag forces me to point out that these things can be seen in a less negative light. And if you used more words like "looks like...will probably be...I expect...shit", then I'd feel far less need to give alternative opinions.Your post is bordering on being apologetic.
And I was commenting on whether deviating from D&D makes for a better or worse game.No, it shouldn't. The first question should be "when core mechanics deviate this hilariously much, is there anything at all that should cause us to believe this is an actual D&D game"?Anyway, in general I think the first question should be
Look, I'm sure you can make a great game where creatures have 3,300 hit points at those levels, but it's got nothing to do with D&D, and the topic I was commenting on is "will this be an actual 5E game or is it 5E in name and iconography only?"
Actually I thought:Nice way to show how the Gateway tool is uselessThe Codex may have written SCL off, but the true fans on their forums are gearing up for some serious roleplaying
I am a paladin player. I always roll one named Aric, human. Kal is my paladin from Baldurs Gate saga. This time I will pick another name and roll a half-elf paladin. He will be the son of Kal and Aerie, her mother putted him in a magic slumber after Kal and her leave the Realms when he was barely 18 and now he wakes centuries later ready for SCL.
Based on the feedback i had here, I will roll a half-elf now since they make so great paladins too and it will be a nice way to connect both plots in my personal story.
Also stop it with this fucking "might be NWN" shit. (...) it had an insanely faithful D&D implementation. Same goes for NWN2.
So if you combine that with the toolset, you get the best game evah for some people.
Really Grunker, you don't seem to realize what potential this game has for community.
It's the exact opposite. The simulationist argument would be to change a rules on a whim if it interferes with perceived realism or setting consistensy. In fact, my post points out the fallacy of ultra-simulationism: consistensy of simulation is achieved much better by adherence to structure and internal rules than by everyone's personal definition of "realism." How can you take seriously the rules of game if they can be changed on a whim? Which quote-unquote "gamist" argument can you think of that allows the game rules to be so flexible that they must submit to all other considerations?
I love simulation. It's why I play P&P. I just don't think the coined "simulationist" school of thought has much merit.
The bad side tends to be 'I know more about this than you, so I should be able to do what I want/this is shit.'
Well, there's nothing in this world, least of all P&P rules, that is immune to childishness and narcicism. I don't contest that strict rules adherence is bad if you're dealing with people who are not responsible adults, or at least have a GM who can detect and negate that sort of thing. I get your point, I just haven't had to deal with anything like that since I was a teenager.
Hey, don't judge them too harshly
A boss fight in an actual D&D environment would usually take less than 10 rounds to finish by competent players, which means if they followed the ruleset too closely, even the most cinematic fight of the game would be done in a minute or so.
So, why not multiply the HP by about 30 and then reduce the average damage by half?
Now, all the boss fights in that game can last as long as WoW boss fights do.
It's the game design grand or what?
Holy shit, what are they smoking when they think that is a good game design for anything?
Didn't 4e introduce the concept of solo monsters? Looks like quite a few people like the idea of 4-6 players having to beat on a single boss for a while.
Only compared to the grognardy nostalgiafest that is Pathfinder. Pretty sure it was still #2.You realize 4th ed. tanked majorly, right?
Only compared to the grognardy nostalgiafest that is Pathfinder. Pretty sure it was still #2.You realize 4th ed. tanked majorly, right?
RPGs must be in a pretty bad spot if being #2 doesn't make you money.Ignoring your ignorance, #2 in terms of what? It caused a major move away from D&D and lost market share for Wizards. When you talk about it with Wizards employees today it is clear that it was basically a failed experience. Its relation to other RPGs is immaterial, the fact is that after 3rd ed. nothing could challenge D&D's absolute hold on the market. After 4th ed., 5th couldn't even generate that much buzz. I don't even know someone personally who owns the player's handbook. Casuals and grognards alike. That was unheard of before 4th happened.
Are you, a poster who prides herself on research, under the delusion that 4th ed. was succesful?
RPGs must be in a pretty bad spot if being #2 doesn't make you money.
4th ed sold on its name alone. Along with doing that it removed 5th ed's possibility to do so. You can only rely on reputation to sell a broken product once.
Less successful is still successful.Why did 3E have a billion side-products and 4E nearly none?
Less successful is still successful.
Hey, don't judge them too harshly
A boss fight in an actual D&D environment would usually take less than 10 rounds to finish by competent players, which means if they followed the ruleset too closely, even the most cinematic fight of the game would be done in a minute or so.
So, why not multiply the HP by about 30 and then reduce the average damage by half?
Now, all the boss fights in that game can last as long as WoW boss fights do.
It's the game design grand or what?
Holy shit, what are they smoking when they think that is a good game design for anything?
Didn't 4e introduce the concept of solo monsters? Looks like quite a few people like the idea of 4-6 players having to beat on a single boss for a while, but to get a comparable experience from pre-4e D&D you only had a few creature types to choose from at any given level.