Broken NDAs or Elaborate Trolls?

Bedrockgames · Feb 16, 2012

Siberys said:
I'm one of those guys that likes "gamey and dissociated stuff", and this is disappointing, because It feels like they're half-assing it. This is what I'm afraid will happen with the playtest; they'll compromise and thereby please no one.

That said, if this is real, it could be a "starting point", from whence the playtest would develop, but I feel that would have a danger of tribalizing the playtest crowds and thereby making the playtest nigh-on pointless. :/

If they made gamey dissociative stuff optional ad ons, it wouldn't bother me. But a lot of it looks like it is there with the warlord and healing. I think you could be right and they are just hitting wierd middle ground, which wont please anyone. I think it is important they understand people who like 4e, like it for very clear reasons. People who dont like 4e, dislike it for very clear reasons. Getting rid of healing surges but allowing ten minute heals doesnt get around the believability issues of HS for me. In a lot of ways it sounds worse.

Dragonblade · Feb 16, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
I dont know how genuine these "leaks" are but if they are, this is very disapointing. It seems like WOTC doesnt really understand how much people disike the gamey and dissociated stuff from 4E. Maybe they have tunnel vision from culling too much feedback on their own website.

Considering that D&D is a game, I like the gamey and dissociated stuff if it helps me play the style I want. Thats why I'd rather have two (or more) healing systems and you can pick the one you want and ignore the other one. Some people don't want Warlords and thats cool. Some people like me, don't want a week of bedrest between encounters.

Bedrockgames · Feb 16, 2012

Dragonblade said:
Considering that D&D is a game, I like the gamey and dissociated stuff if it helps me play the style I want. Thats why I'd rather have two (or more) healing systems and you can pick the one you want and ignore the other one. Some people don't want Warlords and thats cool. Some people like me, don't want a week of bedrest between encounters.

I understand, and i dont think there is anything wrong with your position...gamey stuff just isn't my cup of tea. Your solution is totally reasonable. In fact, it seems he obvious way to go to me. Two healing systems, one for the crowd who want to keep things moving and one for the crowd that wants a bit of realism in healing.

Lord Rasputin · Feb 16, 2012

Siberys said:
Honestly, all confirmations did was make actually rolling a 20 anticlimactic, because the glow of rolling a twenty was immediately overwhelmed by needing to roll the die again - especially against creatures with high AC, it went from being fun to being a slog. And it adds another superfluous roll to the fight's resolution.

On the contrary, confirmations added to the fun. They helped the more skilled combatant, they kept crits from happening way too often (seriously, 5% means they happen every few times around the table), and kept the fight in the characters' favor.

Without confirmations, I don't want crits at all. They just are some wholly random event, making a fight like a game of Candyland: who rolled/drew best, not who had the most skill or the most clever plan.

FitzTheRuke · Feb 16, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
If they made gamey dissociative stuff optional ad ons, it wouldn't bother me. But a lot of it looks like it is there with the warlord and healing. I think you could be right and they are just hitting wierd middle ground, which wont please anyone. I think it is important they understand people who like 4e, like it for very clear reasons. People who dont like 4e, dislike it for very clear reasons. Getting rid of healing surges but allowing ten minute heals doesnt get around the believability issues of HS for me. In a lot of ways it sounds worse.

Why? Do you insist that every single hit point counts for physical damage? Wouldn't you think that it would be harder to believe that experience could cause a person to be able to live through far more hacks with an axe or arrows to the chest than it is to believe that HP represent more than that and include something (like focus, morale, etc) that you could get back after a brief time not fighting? (Or by being yelled at by a tactician?)

I like my believability too, and I just don't see your problem.

(Unless you're talking about why a Warlord can yell you back from the brink of death and unconsciousness, then I agree it's a stretch.)

Siberys · Feb 16, 2012

For me, dissociation is important because it aids refluffing. Take prone in 4e for example; oftentimes it doesn't make sense for whatever reason - proning an ooze or a snake, frex, but that doesn't stop me from using its rules. I only have to describe it differently.

I've made whole characters with one class and then completely changed their description such that you'd /think/ they belonged to another. Rules wise, nothing different, though. The more dissociated the mechanics are, the easier it is to do this sort of thing, because fewer things rely on hard-coded descriptions.

Siberys · Feb 16, 2012

Lord Rasputin said:
Without confirmations, I don't want crits at all. They just are some wholly random event, making a fight like a game of Candyland: who rolled/drew best, not who had the most skill or the most clever plan.

Who's to say that my character who critted didn't do it because of skill or a good plan? It's not me swinging the sword, after all, its my PC. I'm fine narrating those details, but I've had too many games where confirmations just sucked the fun out of a neat in-game event and led to what felt like a grindfest.

And it's not like a single crit'll usually drop anything in my games-of-choice; they're fun, occasional power-ups, not one-hit KOs.

Dannager · Feb 16, 2012

Dragonblade said:
Actually in 4e its not a crit unless the 20 would have resulted in a hit. If the only reason they hit at all was because of the 20 being an auto-hit then its not a crit.

Much better than inventing a clunky extra roll that mostly just screws over players.

This.

Let's not pretend that the problem of critting impossible-to-hit enemies wasn't already solved. It was. 4e dealt with it, and it works great.

Bedrockgames · Feb 16, 2012

FitzTheRuke said:
Why? Do you insist that every single hit point counts for physical damage? Wouldn't you think that it would be harder to believe that experience could cause a person to be able to live through far more hacks with an axe or arrows to the chest than it is to believe that HP represent more than that and include something (like focus, morale, etc) that you could get back after a brief time not fighting? (Or by being yelled at by a tactician?)

I like my believability too, and I just don't see your problem.

(Unless you're talking about why a Warlord can yell you back from the brink of death and unconsciousness, then I agree it's a stretch.)

I am not going to debate HP, damage and healing surges with you. We've had countless threads on the subject in the general forum and I have expressed my opinions there. Right not it is sufficient to say, i think 5e will fit my preference more if they go to hp and healing from previous editions like 2e.

WarlockLord · Feb 16, 2012

You know, the first one might not be a hoax. I mean, considering that the playtest followed their design principles but everyone hated it, isn't the assumption of damage control reasonable?