D&D 4th Edition Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition - Page 16




+ Log in or register to post
Page 16 of 93 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 66 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 929
  1. #151
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,527

    Ignore Herschel
    Quote Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion View Post
    I've doubted that they can successfully pull off "one game to rule them all" for a while now. Bearing the burden of multiple game lines is a better business standpoint than trying to make one game for everyone and failing at it.
    I'm not in disagreement with you on this, but they've stated they think they can pull it off. Color me skeptical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedrockgames View Post
    I think of smaller companies can pull it off, wotc can figure out how to make this work. It might require staggered releases if they don't have the manpower for it. But if they already have folks working on (presamably) at least three very different rules modules, i dont see why those same folks cant develop three seperate revisions of 4e, 3e, and Ad&d. In fact under this approach there is considerably less work because they are improving and revising rather than overhauling.
    Economy and scale. WotC isn't a small* company and they don't want to operate as a small* company. That's for small* companies. WotC's expectations are for bigger fish and customers' expectations are bigger than that.

    * "Small" being a relative terms as all gaming companies are technically small businesses even if they're a division of a large corporation.

 

  • #152
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    2,306

    Ignore Minigiant
    Quote Originally Posted by Bedrockgames View Post
    i suspect the modules are all being developed in sync with the core. That seems the most effective way to do it.
    I believe this is true. The core kernel of rules will have to be written at the same time as the modular rules. That way the super powah organic spells and the rules that assume ethe average HP is 6 per level after first match up with the core.
    My beard is hairy.

  • #153
    Registered User
    Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)

    shadow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    726

    Ignore shadow
    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.

  • #154
    Quote Originally Posted by Herschel View Post


    Economy and scale. WotC isn't a small* company and they don't want to operate as a small* company. That's for small* companies. WotC's expectations are for bigger fish and customers' expectations are bigger than that.

    * "Small" being a relative terms as all gaming companies are technically small businesses even if they're a division of a large corporation.
    i understand that are not a small rpg company. My point is if small rpg publishers can manage to produce multiple lines with just one or two guys designing, the I don't think it would be that hard for wotc to pull it off. Whether they want to operate as a small company or not, the fact remains: getting all players to sign on to a single edition is a tall order. If they can do it, great. But it is starting to look less and less feasible. Why not take the module approach one step further and cut out the core game, so they can truly design three seperate modules that cater entirely to the three seperate audiences they appear to be going for? Is there a specific impediment to this that wotc faces as a result of being a larger rpg co? Its possible I am overlooking something. I could be totally wrong about this because I dont know a whole lot about wotc on the inside. I am just not seeing how it is any worse, if they budget properly, to gain those same customers (probably in greater numbers) with three seperate editions.

    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.
    I was wrong about 5E

  • #155
    Commutiny Exporter
    Guide (Lvl 11)

    tuxgeo's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Western Oregon, USA
    Posts
    1,096
    Blog Entries
    4
    D&D

    Ignore tuxgeo
    [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."
    Examples:
    (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! ("mmnnaarrrrrrrrr")
    "I'll take sitting around on my laurels because my character died any day over feeling like regardless of what I do, my character can't fail no matter what." -- Hobo

  • #156
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    Incenjucar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,978

    Ignore Incenjucar
    Quote Originally Posted by shadow View Post
    However, for me and many people D&D is a role-playing game rather than a tactical miniatures game.
    You make it sound like balanced combat rules that make movement count and being able to roleplay are mutually exclusive. They are not. There are certainly many people who are easily overwhelmed when faced with many meaningful choices, but that is an issue of not having a system designed to narrow choices for those who are not comfortable with them, as with the Slayer in 4E. A balanced combat system where all choices are meaningful only harms RP if you are overwhelmed by your choices. For those who are not overwhelmed by choice, it actually makes roleplaying easier because the world is more explained and easier to work with.
    Elemental Heroes: The Harbinger May/16/2012 http://community.wizards.com/incenjucar/blog/

  • #157
    Registered User
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)

    Stormonu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    3,843
    Blog Entries
    7

    Ignore Stormonu
    Quote Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion View Post
    I've doubted that they can successfully pull off "one game to rule them all" for a while now. Bearing the burden of multiple game lines is a better business standpoint than trying to make one game for everyone and failing at it.
    Considering the OP, it doesn't look like they've been successful yet. They're going to have to put a lot of work into the modules to make it all-edition friendly.
    "If it has stats, we can kill it." - T.G. Jackson, intro to 3rd ed Hackmaster

    Homebrew 4E material | My campaign world - Amberos

  • #158
    Registered User
    Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)

    Alarian's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Brainerd, MN
    Posts
    136

    Ignore Alarian
    Quote Originally Posted by drothgery View Post
    No, combat has to be balanced. It's too big of a part of the game, and it's the part that's life or death for the PCs. If a character sucks at combat, then why is a group that's fighting all the time bringing that character along (out of character, it's because the guy playing him is your friend, but in character it makes no sense).
    I'll have to let the scholar in our 4th edition campaign with little to no combat skills know he's playing the game wrong and make sure he knows that he's ruining the game for the rest of us. Glad you let us know we weren't having fun with him in our group, we all foolishly thought he was an asset to the party...

  • #159
    Registered User
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)

    drothgery's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    10,235
    Blog Entries
    3

    Ignore drothgery
    Quote Originally Posted by Alarian View Post
    I'll have to let the scholar in our 4th edition campaign with little to no combat skills know he's playing the game wrong and make sure he knows that he's ruining the game for the rest of us. Glad you let us know we weren't having fun with him in our group, we all foolishly thought he was an asset to the party...
    How did you build a 4e PC 'scholar' character that's bad at combat? A lazy warlord (or bard or shaman built along the same lines) or a pacifist cleric may well be bad at dealing damage directly, but they're still effective contributors to combat.
    Dave Rothgery

    PBP
    Spoiler:

    My EnWorld Blog
    Republic and Empire
    Buffverse M&M game

    Characters
    Active
    Sanne Bacher d'Lyrandar in S@squ@tch's Against the Giants - Team Black

    Inactive
    Istara Kandorian in Ankh-Morpork Guard's Star Wars: Rebels with Style
    Eric Hassel (Quarterback) in Jemal's Mutant High
    Sariel in Rumspringa's Keep on the Shadowfell
    Khalia ir'Indari in DEFCON1's Eye of the Lich Queen
    Serrana Vao in Karl Green's Knights of the Old Republic (with 213 things Serrana can't do in the Jedi Order)
    Italimelk in Living ENWorld
    Daellin ir'Ayellan in stonegod's Expedition to Castle Ravenloft
    drothgery's Victorian Eberron game
    Star Wars/KotOR Era - The Second K'ril Incursion

  • #160
    Quote Originally Posted by shadow View Post
    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.
    Implying that 4E fans want a "tactical miniatures game" and are not really interested in a "roleplaying" game is not going to help this discussion at all.

    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".)
    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.
    I think you don't understand either the extent of pre-4E imbalance, or the real idea of what balance means.

    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.

    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.
    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).

    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.

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 16 of 93 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 66 ... LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. The Bastardization of the Game: Edition Purity versus Edition Innovation
      By Jack7 in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming Discussion
      Replies: 47
      Last Post: Sunday, 12th July, 2009, 04:42 AM
    2. How Important is Magic to Dungeons and Dragons? - Third Edition vs Fourth Edition
      By Hexmage-EN in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming Discussion
      Replies: 965
      Last Post: Wednesday, 13th May, 2009, 12:59 PM
    3. 6 players, 5 hours, 4th edition
      By Rodrigo Istalindir in forum D&D and Pathfinder
      Replies: 182
      Last Post: Wednesday, 5th March, 2008, 12:49 PM
    4. The Best & Worst of 3rd Edition: SINGLE BEST Product of 3rd edition (poll closed)
      By TerraDave in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming Discussion
      Replies: 110
      Last Post: Saturday, 16th February, 2008, 12:57 AM
    5. Any AD&D 1st Edition players here?
      By Ermanaric in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming Discussion
      Replies: 46
      Last Post: Monday, 30th September, 2002, 03:10 AM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •