+ Log in or register to post
Results 151 to 160 of 929
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 08:30 PM #151
Magsman (Lvl 14)
* "Small" being a relative terms as all gaming companies are technically small businesses even if they're a division of a large corporation.
- EN World
- has no influence
- on adverts that
- are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 08:41 PM #152
Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 08:52 PM #153
Cutpurse (Lvl 5)
I suppose that I'm somewhat of a "grognard" at heart. With that said, I disagree with a lot of what the OP mentioned. One thing that I liked about the playtest rules was that they seemed fairly simple, without all the AEDU powers and tactics.
I can see how some people, especially fans of 4e, would be somewhat disappointed with the current iteration of the playtest rules. However, for me and many people D&D is a role-playing game rather than a tactical miniatures game. Although most adventures will involve combat, tactics and strategy are not as important as telling an exciting story. I like the idea of quick combats that can be resolved without the use of miniatures and battle grids. (What the 5e design team is calling "theater of the mind".)
When I play, I want to get into an adventure story rather than having to worry about using the right tactical option at the right time during combat. I don't want to be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of "powers" my fighter has to pick from during combat. I have found that the sheer amount of options and tactical rules tend to scare off new players (unless they were invested in wargames such as Warhammer before trying role-playing games). Most new and casual players just want to know what to roll to make an attack.
Also, on the issue of balance, I have come to the conclusion that complete balance in all areas of the game is an untenable holy grail. Should "balance" even be that important? The idea that every class has to be the absolute best at one area strikes me as somewhat of an artificial "meta-game" idea. I don't mind classes being inherently unbalanced as long as all of them have some role to play.
As far as the OP's contention that the fighter is not that powerful compared to other classes such as the cleric, I would caution saying that we have only seen an early draft of the playtest rules. From what we have heard there will probably be some more maneuvers presented in the next iteration. It is very likely that the fighter will get some bonuses to the said maneuvers. Also, one must remember that the spells are a limited resource. Sure Crusader's Strike will give you an extra 1d6 damage, but it only last for an hour and most adventures I've played in have more than one combat per game day.
When you are in the midst of night look toward the stars.
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 08:53 PM #154
Superhero (Lvl 15)
I hope they can pull off the modules. Not trying to be overly negative here as I did like what I saw initially. But I am having trouble believing that is going to succeed as I see the reactions from various camps. Its just too messy to find a core everyone can agree on. Take out the core. Sell the modules seperately as different versions of the game.
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 08:59 PM #155
Lama (Lvl 13)
[Sixteen pages to read, all posted in less than three days. That's a fair bit of discussion.]
For me, I would like to see 5ENext contain the following from 4E: Multiclassing (to any other class, subject to prereq.s) at 1st character Level.
Such multiclassing facilitates stories that don't quite work when "multi" begins at Level 2 with "taking my next level in something else."
(1) Fighter M/C'd into Sorcerer: a fighter of a sorcerous bloodline, whose power manifested before he or she tried to "live it down" through fighter training.
(2) Wizard M/C's into Cleric: a cleric of Corellon who was discovered to have the bare minimum qualifications to be in the clergy, but possessed such high Intelligence that he or she was actively encouraged to study Arcane magic as a more effective way to honor the god of Arcane Magic.
Making up other examples is easy, and 4E has the Feats to achieve such stories. I would like 5ENext to include that capability, too.
Original Member of the Rouseketeers! -- Be of good cheer
evanescent detergency -- (proudly hosted by Glum )
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 09:02 PM #156
Magsman (Lvl 14)
Elemental Heroes: The Harbinger May/16/2012 http://community.wizards.com/incenjucar/blog/
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 09:10 PM #157
Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 09:26 PM #158
Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 09:36 PM #159
Myrmidon (Lvl 10)
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 09:46 PM #160
Regardless, you're wrong. 4E is an RPG, and 4E fans want an RPG. Anything else is just you deluding yourself or trying to dismiss the tastes, desires, and needs of others. You don't have to like 4E, but it would help avoid some of ENWorld's eternal edition warring if people like you at least gave other people some amount of respect and didn't try to imply that they are not real D&D fans.
Although most adventures will involve combat, tactics and strategy are not as important as telling an exciting story. I like the idea of quick combats that can be resolved without the use of miniatures and battle grids. (What the 5e design team is calling "theater of the mind".)I think you don't understand either the extent of pre-4E imbalance, or the real idea of what balance means.Also, on the issue of balance, I have come to the conclusion that complete balance in all areas of the game is an untenable holy grail. Should "balance" even be that important? The idea that every class has to be the absolute best at one area strikes me as somewhat of an artificial "meta-game" idea. I don't mind classes being inherently unbalanced as long as all of them have some role to play.
Complete and perfect balance is indeed an untenable holy grail. That said, it is still a goal worth pursuing, and it is simply unacceptable to tolerate gross imbalance simply because perfect balance is nearly impossible to achieve. And really, 3E has gross, disgusting, and entirely intolerable levels of imbalance. In other games, most of the discussion of balance really only concerns the 5-10% difference between options that only matters in highly competitive or high-skill play. It concerns things like correcting the trivial advantage given to the layer who moves first in Go, which is meaningless to low-level players but statistically meaningful for professionals (to this day pro Go organizations work to correct this imblance).
3E is not that level of imbalance. It is more like a 500% difference between options, which has a dramatic and unquestionable impact on players of any skill level. The higher the skill level, the greater the negative impact. I can say without any exaggeration or hyperbole that 3E is one of the most imbalanced games I have seen, and might very well rank high on the list of the most imbalanced products to have ever been created. So, yes, perfect balance is impossible, but 3E D&D (and 5E as well, from what has been shown so far) is so far away from being balanced that worrying about the impossibility of perfect balance is utterly meaningless.
Also, giving each character a role to play is an important part of balance, and is an important part of why many versions of D&D are imbalanced. You see, one of the biggest problems people have with 3E is that the Fighter simply doesn't have a role. There literally isn't a single place in the game where you want to have a fighter in 3E. Almost everything the Fighter can do the Barbarian can do better. The Druid's animal companion is more useful than the Fighter in almost every regard, actually. Casters like the Wizard, Cleric, and Druid make every other character type almost completely redundant and meaningless as far as every single game mechanic is concerned, both in combat and even more so outside of it.
So yes, giving each character a role that makes they can play, even if they are not strictly the best at that role, is good. What isn't good is telling the player something like "the Fighter is the best at fighting!" and having that be a complete and utter lie (or maybe just complete and irredeemable incompetence on the designer's part). Because, you know what? The Fighter is not the best at fighting. He's pretty much the worst at fighting, actually. And I don't think it is acceptable for a product I've spent money on to lie to me.
You know, this has been said before, but just because it's a playtest doesn't mean we can't comment on the imbalance. Playtests only function properly if people do give feedback, and lots of it. What's more, we have no incentive whatsoever to trust WotC to fix this. We gain nothing by trusting them (particularly since they have done a lot to erode that trust), and we have a lot to gain by voicing our own feelings (even if the hope for that gain was misplaced, at least we made the effort).As far as the OP's contention that the fighter is not that powerful compared to other classes such as the cleric, I would caution saying that we have only seen an early draft of the playtest rules. From what we have heard there will probably be some more maneuvers presented in the next iteration. It is very likely that the fighter will get some bonuses to the said maneuvers. Also, one must remember that the spells are a limited resource. Sure Crusader's Strike will give you an extra 1d6 damage, but it only last for an hour and most adventures I've played in have more than one combat per game day.
Also, just because spells are limited resources does not make them balanced. 3E proved that. Balance would only be created if that limit is carefully studied and thoroughly playtested. It will only ever be balanced if the people in the playtest speak up about whether it works or not, and the people at WotC make fine adjustments. Telling people to just trust them is actually just going to sabotage any attempt to create any balance at all. Balance isn't magic; it's a process of experimentation and mathematical analysis based on data. Trusting that a simple limitation will balance something powerful, or that someone can just "fix" it, isn't even the right approach to balancing something.