Powered by Invision Power Board


Pages: (2) 1 [2]  ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> The problem with......
Axel
Posted: May 2 2004, 12:04 AM
Quote Post


Freelance HTML coder (hint Aleshandre)
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 218
Member No.: 54
Joined: 22-January 04



Trust me, the only stuff that WotC churns out that isn't total shit is only quazi-mediocre at best. The D&D'ers don't get it any better than the WoT'ers. Actually I think we get the advantage: the only ones making our junk is us, so we actually have incentive to produce decent materials unlike WotC which makes large amounts of worthless shit for its games just trying to make a buck.

As for the d20 magic system, like the entire 3rd edition D&D game it needs a serious overhaul (3.5 didn't come close to what was neccessary) The entire system is designed around roll-playing, and therefore follows easily predictable rules that make everything identical. While saving the assholes at WotC the trouble of being creative, this has the effect of ruining the most crucial of the DM's two jobs: that of storyteller. Since everything works the same all the time the wonder related to magic is gone. Channelers go from mysterious workers of the unseen forces to artillery on legs. Magic items fortunately don't suffer this as much, it WoT they are still reasonably difficult to find and therefore remain highly valuable and extremely rare. But for the weaves themselves... the best thing would be to limit the number of channelers in your game and ensure that each of them has a limited list of weaves. Make sure that weaves your PC's take make sense and were easily accessible. For example there's no reason for an apprentice Windfinder to know fireball, it would do her alot more harm than good and she wouldn't be used to manipulating fire in any case; hands of air however....


--------------------
Honorary Paladin of the Lawful Naughty
If I seem to hate the d20 system, its only because I hate the system. Actually I just hate 3e, its biased me against the system. I rather like WoT.
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteAOL
Top
Aleshandre
Posted: May 2 2004, 07:02 PM
Quote Post


Elder Scholar
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 130
Member No.: 18
Joined: 15-January 04



Hey Axel,

I dissagree with you on one point (that matters since we have different views on the D20 system vs AD&D in the first place). That is the idea that it "has the effect of ruining the DM's two most crucial jobs". I feel that it is quite the contrary, the DM now has more time to play the part of storyteller, because he now nolonger needs to worry about relearning a new system every time that he changes settings. It is much easier now to take a character from any D20 setting (Star Wars, D&D, WoT, Modern, Gamma World and a myriad of others by 3rd party publishers) and port them over into another with a minimum of changes to the character and not have to worry about balance issues. The only thing that a GM now has to worry about is the backstory and the events that she is planning on having transpire. Much like writing a book, any author can write in any genre without having to reinvent the entire genre. Only the important details related to setting need to be adjusted. In truth, it has always been the job of the GM to create the sense of wonder about magic and even the setting itself. The game mechanics are there with the sole purpose of preventing any one character from becoming the most powerful character in existance, without having to work for it. The rest of the details about any RPG are simply fluff to set the stage.


--------------------
PMEmail Poster
Top
Entropic_existence
Posted: May 3 2004, 03:24 AM
Quote Post


Breaker-of-horses-and-men
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 116
Member No.: 22
Joined: 15-January 04



You know personally I quite enjoy the WoT RPG as written, I don't even think Prophecies is that bad. This despite the fact that I consdier myself a pretty hardcore fan smile.gif But then again I've been Roleplaying in the setting along time, and playing DnD for longer and I can see why some things that are different are. It's called game balance, and sometimes to make a game that appeals to the most people, as well as making all character types relatively equal in the long haul, you have to sacrifice some precision from the setting. But as a DM that is what house rules are for, to bring your game more into line with your interpretation of the novels.

Channelers might be the mystical users of some unseen force in some of the cultures, but in many they are quite literally artillery with legs. I really don't see how the RPG changes this from the books. In my game I have a Wise One's Apprentice whose only offensive weapon is Harden Air. The rest of the time she uses her guile, intelligence, and creative use of other weaves to overcome even in combat situations, just like a Wise One would be expected to do. If you look at the Asha'man and a good majority of Damane they are trained as weapons first, the heavy artillery of the Wheel of Time if you will. In my opinion yea we could always add in a ton of more weaves that aren't combat related at all and thats pretty much enough needed to play in the setting as is with a channeler and have them be your typical Sedai and not a combat machine.


--------------------
What is dead can never die.
PMEmail PosterAOLYahooMSN
Top
Primal Paladin22
Posted: May 3 2004, 04:22 AM
Quote Post


Elder Scholar
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 200
Member No.: 96
Joined: 16-February 04



The thing is in a high fantasy game, think Arse Magica, game balance is not really a focus of the game design. I understand why peaple want game balance but I have found that as long as the majority of the group are not dunder heads it really doesn't become a problem.

The real issue is that D&D is not a high fantasy game. Therefore, the WoT game, being based on D&D is really not a high fantasy game. The setting, as set forth by RJ, is very much a high fantasy setting.

D20 works great for what is was made for, and it even turned out good with Star Wars. I dare anyone to say that WoTC put as much effort into WoT as they did the SW game. They just didn't. Maybe it was their fault, or maybe Lucas made himself more involed that did RJ.

In any case I am having fun playing it as is to but then I have fun playing 3E. The truth is that I really am a woodsman kind of guy and not a channeler type. I love skills. I actually think that the channeling system has more of a high fan element thatn the standard spell system from D&D it just doesn't do it for me.

I wish there was some way I could think of to make it do what I want it to do. I just havn't figured it out yet. You guys know what? I still have not gotten a real sraight answer on the topic of this thread.

Do you guys think Cutting Lines of Fire is set at to high a level? smile.gif


Peace
J


--------------------
"Me... I'm doom on two legs, and you... you're a fish among sharks." - said the submission fighter "Lancelot" to an arrogant and unnamed scrub.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Zifnab
Posted: May 3 2004, 01:21 PM
Quote Post


Elder Scholar
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 249
Member No.: 125
Joined: 3-April 04



QUOTE (Zifnab @ Apr 30 2004, 07:11 PM)
The fact that the weaves are in general less powerful than D&D spells doesn't concern me - WoT has no real magic items to speak of so the weaves, in general, are plenty powerful. What concerns me are the weaves that are far too weak compared to the others, such as Cutting Lines of Fire. That does what, 2d12 reflex for half? For like 7th level and up? That's terrible.

See, I did answer. smile.gif


--------------------
Playing: Jen Farthen

I use the word "totally" too much. I need to change it up and use a word that is different but has the same meaning. "Mitch, do you like submarine sandwhiches?" "All-encompassingly..."
PMEmail Poster
Top
MagusRogue
Posted: May 3 2004, 01:37 PM
Quote Post


Village fool. Paid well.
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 703
Member No.: 26
Joined: 16-January 04



Once again i just have to point out a few things about Cutting. For one, i think its the only cone-area attack in the game so far. Don't knock Cones... they can potentially hit more than a fireball. you also don't have to worry about aiming it so it doesn't hit you.
Also, and this is just a revision i made to it, Cutting Lines of Fire should ignore all Hardness. This also means it'll ignore cover. In the books, ducking behind a wall did absolutely nothing to help avoid damage from Cutting Lines. no matter the material, it goes right through.
So, when you look at it and compare it with other weaves, it really isn't that bad for its price.


--------------------
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand this rant's done.

Magus the Extreme. Your wonderfully-ghoulish partner GM of Patterns of the Weave. Be fearful, indeed.
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteICQAOLYahooMSN
Top
Zarozynia
Posted: May 3 2004, 02:50 PM
Quote Post


Seer of Darkness
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 201
Member No.: 131
Joined: 10-April 04



I think that I agree with Aleshandre here, although there are some problems with the D20 system, it is very very nice to be able to go from one game to another without having to relearn everything. I walked out of playing a year long starwars game as a character and was able to walk into running a WoT game without having to learn anything minus a few game mastering things as I definately know the world, and the system is very similar. Do I think that what WoTC did was perfect? No way, and whomever said that Wizards spent more time on StarWars is right, but unfortunately...it makes sense. StarWars, being movie based, is always going to have a wider fan base than books will. Sad but true.

I do think that the world of the wheel of time is high fantasy, and I feel like the core role book does not adequentely work with what the one power is designed to be like in a thousand little ways that eventually add up to "wrong". My feeling has always been that the designers didn't spend enough time thinking about what the one power was like, instead they merely half way combined thier arcane magic from AD&D and the force from StarWars. They should have gone closer to the second while vearing totally away from the first, as weaving the one power is by no means arcane magic.

This is the biggest reason that I like Prime Paladin's fatigue based channeling system, rather than claiming that somebody has a set number of weaves per day as if they were an arcane magic user who had to "learn" their weaves, it is closer to the users of the force which take subdual damage when using their powers.


--------------------
Legends of Darkness Are Not Always Myths - An Ongoing experiment in writing/illustration/mythology

Photographia

Temple of the Goat - a philisophical weblog
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteAOL
Top
Entropic_existence
Posted: May 3 2004, 04:29 PM
Quote Post


Breaker-of-horses-and-men
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 116
Member No.: 22
Joined: 15-January 04



Yea, as for Cutting Lines of Fire I'd agree with Magus that adding it ignoring hardness should pretty much bring the weave into line with the books. Cones are pretty nasty area of effects, since it essentially keeps spreading out and potentially hitting a large number of targets. I don't think it needs to eb toned down at all. The thing I'm starting to learn from DM'ing, and from participating on this board is that you have to take advantage of, and always consider, overchanneling. It really bring Channelers up in power level in my opinion, and does reflect the books somewhat. The Fatigue Based Channeling system is pretty cool I will admit, and yes does more accurately reflect the books. I tend not to get into too many House Rules in my games that radically alter the system as written. I know I enjoy playing in it, as do my players, although my group tends to be pretty combat oriented...not really into the puzzle and political stuff too much but thats ok. We still manage to pull some exceptional role playing out of it.


--------------------
What is dead can never die.
PMEmail PosterAOLYahooMSN
Top
Primal Paladin22
Posted: May 3 2004, 04:44 PM
Quote Post


Elder Scholar
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 200
Member No.: 96
Joined: 16-February 04



Thanks for the plug Z. I really don't have much experiance with cone effects. When I went trough my dragon phase as a DM I was stingy with breath weapon cause you only had 3 per day. I have not used many since then. I'll read up on it.


Peace
J


--------------------
"Me... I'm doom on two legs, and you... you're a fish among sharks." - said the submission fighter "Lancelot" to an arrogant and unnamed scrub.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Axel
Posted: May 3 2004, 08:28 PM
Quote Post


Freelance HTML coder (hint Aleshandre)
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 218
Member No.: 54
Joined: 22-January 04



Aleshandre, the DM has two crucial jobs above all others: that of Storyteller and of Referee. Now the d20 system may make the second job easier, at least for those who switch games. However WotC's lack of quality products has ensured that the first (and more important) job is much more difficult. How can you play in a fantasy environment when the mysterious workers of unseen powers have become artilery on legs? Yes I realized that to the Seanchan the damane are just artillery on legs, but even then the Sul'dam gain the respect most worlds give to the wizards, they work mysterious forces no others can see. To someone who doesn't channel all weaves should seem bizare and incredible, no matter what they are. The fact is that no matter how simple a thing is if its being done with the Power then it should impress those who cannot work it. The way the rules are designed with the players always able to immediately predict the outcome of any weave the instant it has been cast is conducive to meta-game thinking. The best solution I can think of without a complete rewrite of the rules is as the DM to ensure the characters never know what weave has been cast, describe exactly what they can see and do all rolls by yourself ensuring they have no idea what just happened. It won't work for long, but it should help.


--------------------
Honorary Paladin of the Lawful Naughty
If I seem to hate the d20 system, its only because I hate the system. Actually I just hate 3e, its biased me against the system. I rather like WoT.
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteAOL
Top
Aleshandre
Posted: May 3 2004, 10:52 PM
Quote Post


Elder Scholar
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 130
Member No.: 18
Joined: 15-January 04



You are right, Axel, the small number of products for the WoT game have made the job of storyteller more difficult. Fortunately, we have this wonderful community to help us make that job easier with several people who put months of effort into each entry that they make. Unfortunately, the WoT setting is the one that has the most richness in the story behind the game, yet it recieved significantly less support than other games. Star Wars has the second highest level of committed resources of all the games that WotC makes, giving those GMs the most flexibility and the easiest time in the storytelling dept. Modern has more than WoT had, but still leaves much to be desired in concrete setting specific info. The thing about modern is that it was intended to be fairly generic, so setting specific information was never the priority. Modern and WoT do have one thing in common (besides the d20 system) both are designed to be role-play heavy settings, where interaction and skills use are the most important parts of the game. Although there are very few weaves that channelers can learn that are not combat oriented, the other skills and abilities that they can gain can take even the most high-powered combat channeler and turn her into a true diplomat. I really don't see channelers as walking artillery, since they gain so few really dangerous weaves at lower levels (especially initiates).


--------------------
PMEmail Poster
Top
Orclord
Posted: May 4 2004, 05:17 AM
Quote Post


Learned Master
***

Group: Members
Posts: 20
Member No.: 136
Joined: 23-April 04



The damage for this spell does not seem to agree with the level or the text. 2d12 hits is barely a scratch to any mid level fighter/multiclassed fighter. The spell text (limited as it is) says that this spell cleanly (and apparently instantly) cuts through wood, stone, metal and flesh. If you played Rolemaster or MERP, this easily translates into instant slash and/or heat criticals (not uncommon for a 7-9th level spell in this system).

For your other point, about not much thought being put into this game, I agree whole-heartedly. From what I have read here, the system is a re-hash of older material with "flavour added". Given that it was made by a company famous for the insideous "Magic: The Gathering" (and how much endless repetition was and probably still is in that waste of time and money), what is to be expected. I was hopeful and exited when I purchased this book, and started becoming more and more aggravated and disappointed as I read it. Having read over it some times now, I see that it needs a LOT of work to be tolerable, probably a new system. Given time, I think I'll try it in AD&D or more likely Rolemaster.

Rolemaster's spell rules, I think, work better for WoTesque spell-casting anyway, giving the possibilities of access to different lists for different talents (for instance, some Aes Sedai have access to minor healing lists, while others (likely yellow and green ajah) could have access to better lists and/or high spells on the same lists.) application of background options (needed to be developed for the WoT world) could account for affinities, talents, and differences in channeling ability.

That's my take anyway.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Mantyluoto
Posted: May 4 2004, 04:16 PM
Quote Post


New Monster: Hairy Dragon
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 446
Member No.: 17
Joined: 15-January 04



QUOTE
2d12 hits is barely a scratch to any mid level fighter/multiclassed fighter. The spell text (limited as it is) says that this spell cleanly (and apparently instantly) cuts through wood, stone, metal and flesh


so you get an Arnsmen with a high Defence and cast Cutting lines of Fire at him it cuts through his armour!!!!! please tell me that i'm wrong? so do i ignore his armour bonus like the Blade of Fire weave or do i count it.


--------------------
For Those About To Rock, We Salute You
PMEmail Poster
Top
Zifnab
Posted: May 4 2004, 04:51 PM
Quote Post


Elder Scholar
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 249
Member No.: 125
Joined: 3-April 04



Maybe if there were no save it would be slightly better. But it's still only 13 damage (avg) for a seventh level weave.


--------------------
Playing: Jen Farthen

I use the word "totally" too much. I need to change it up and use a word that is different but has the same meaning. "Mitch, do you like submarine sandwhiches?" "All-encompassingly..."
PMEmail Poster
Top
MagusRogue
Posted: May 5 2004, 12:33 AM
Quote Post


Village fool. Paid well.
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 703
Member No.: 26
Joined: 16-January 04



QUOTE (Mantyluoto @ May 4 2004, 11:16 AM)
QUOTE
2d12 hits is barely a scratch to any mid level fighter/multiclassed fighter. The spell text (limited as it is) says that this spell cleanly (and apparently instantly) cuts through wood, stone, metal and flesh


so you get an Arnsmen with a high Defence and cast Cutting lines of Fire at him it cuts through his armour!!!!! please tell me that i'm wrong? so do i ignore his armour bonus like the Blade of Fire weave or do i count it.


ummm....... manty........ it's a cone effect.... armor (unless you're using Armor as DR) only adds to Defense.... thus against ANY area-attack weave, it's useless. Remember, if you're in the area, you make a reflex save for half. no attack roll.

This post has been edited by MagusRogue on May 5 2004, 12:34 AM


--------------------
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand this rant's done.

Magus the Extreme. Your wonderfully-ghoulish partner GM of Patterns of the Weave. Be fearful, indeed.
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteICQAOLYahooMSN
Top
darkriders_shadow_hunter
Posted: May 6 2004, 06:37 PM
Quote Post


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 8
Member No.: 140
Joined: 1-May 04



i just have one thing to say about cutting lines
-in our game we lowered the spell level by 1, but that was it. It is a spell designed to take out puds without having to worry about hitting yourself. True for it's level it dosn't do a lot of damage, but it is a cone and can hit a heck of a lot more people
PMEmail Poster
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic OptionsPages: (2) 1 [2]  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll