+ Log in or register to post
Results 21 to 30 of 929
Sunday, 1st July, 2012, 11:21 AM #21
Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)
First, thanks for all the feedback, especially the critical parts. I will say two things straight off.
First the feedback is based on the idea that you are supposed to be able to play any edition of D&D in D&D Next. The feedback is based explicitely on that. If D&D Next were to have a different stated design goal/philosophy (e.g. "Back to the Dungeon") my comments would not be relevant.
I refute this suggestion, as there are more things a character can do beyond special effects, and the more you define characters by powers, the less able players are of playing the game any other way.
Yes, you can almost match me in damage and health (but again, not accuracy, which is huge in a flat-math system) for an hour.
If you're playing a Fighter, you're doing so because the main thing you want to do is hit things.
And besides... how much "flexibility" does the 4e Fighter have? All of their powers equate to "Kill More Stuff" or "Be Hard to Kill", just like the Fighter from any other edition. How is this a new thing?
As for the Guardian theme... the Fighter in 4e has dozens (maybe even hundreds by now) of abilities that use the same type of action. Why is this somehow a bad thing? It's called opportunity cost.
There's also the fact that, again, you don't need abilities that specifically say "Give this bonus to your teammate" in order to use teamwork.
And if you don't work together? You'll be less effective. That's the way it works, and trying to enforce teamwork is artificial and boring.
Okay, right... repeat after me: "Play. Test." Do you really expect a full complement of options and abilities in a very early Alpha playtest. Of course not.
However, there have been very specific talks about what's to come; like special combat maneuvers for the Fighter, different abilities for the Rogue. It was states long ago that the designers specifically chose to use the low-option, simple version of the Fighter.
Y'know, for the people that like playing simple characters (which you can't really do easily in 4e).
Also, remember that this is level one. Level one characters in 4e are reduced to spamming their at-wills just as much, and it gets just as boring.
And you wanna talk about inflated hit points?
Have... have you actually played the playtest? "Ease of play" is the thing that people are shouting their praise for all over the internet.
Oh, and for your "terrain" and no forced movement... do your players never improvise? You don't have to look at a character sheet to know that a normal person can try to push another person around.
In addition to that, the fact that just about every 4e enemy has a list of special abilities to keep track of is horrible.
How many ways are there to easily prevent 4e monsters from using their powers? I'll give you a hint; not many.
Most skirmishers are built around the principle "Do low damage unless they have combat advantage when they do high damage". So stop them flanking. Artillery is based around the principle "Do high damage at range and low in melee". Modern lurkers are based round the "Attack and be vulnerable every other turn" principle. Brutes are "High damage in melee, none or low at range".
This is why I haven't gone into detail about them.
See my previous point. Often 'what you're best at' is not applicable in a skill challenge. "Mental genius with a flair for knowledge? no use here buddy, we need endurance and athletics to chase the baddies across the rooftops."
"Dextrous athlete? Sorry, this is a social skill challenge, go play in the corner."
[quote]Ah, another pet peeve. Got a move that pushes your opponent? Cool, is there anything to push him into this battle? No?[/qupte]
Then I'm not DMing See my notes on encounter design on the fly.
So... push him anyway. Yeah, that makes sense. And seriously, what happened to open battlefields, large chambers and other normal every day places that don't involve pits, lava, patches of ice etc?
(Actually, that's a key point of difference between playgroups. It sounds to me like you're firmly in the camp of 'mechanics must provide the fun')
Because 4E isn't tedious and grindy? What?? Escalated hit points? Compared with what? 4E? Are you serious?
2) Having these features present in such quantity (as much as every room in published adventures...) contributes to my broken verisimilitude.
You certainly did a good job of describing 4E, but your impressions of where 5E is going, and your feelings as to which direction is the right direction... well that's where we disagree.
Sunday, 1st July, 2012, 11:41 AM #22
Defender (Lvl 8)
Sunday, 1st July, 2012, 12:28 PM #23
Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)
Sunday, 1st July, 2012, 12:45 PM #24
Superhero (Lvl 15)
Sunday, 1st July, 2012, 12:57 PM #25
Guide (Lvl 11)
Sunday, 1st July, 2012, 01:05 PM #26
Spellbinder (Lvl 16)
Neonchameleon is right that it's already clear that D&DNext won't address the features of 4e that many of us found very attractive.
I think a positive note is omitted, though, in as much as DDN might bring something else to D&D that many of us find attractive and fun. That is really why I am following the playtest, now; it's clear that DDN won't have many or most of the key elements I liked in 4e, but will it have something new and fun that I might enjoy?
So far, the situation is "I don't know". I see nothing, yet, but it is only early days.
- to get, lose or set up a possibility for flanking (especially for the Rogue),
- to push enemies into or through damaging effects set up by the Wizard or the Warlock,
- to group monsters such that area effects from the other characters will be more effective,
- to move enemies such that their attacks (especially area attacks) will be less effective...
...the list goes on. A "useless" forced movement effect would indeed be tedious, if it ever became a factor - but it doesn't.
Last edited by Balesir; Sunday, 1st July, 2012 at 01:08 PM.
Sunday, 1st July, 2012, 01:51 PM #27
Magsman (Lvl 14)
When we do that a conversation or a discussion becomes a monologue spouted atop a soapbox.
It's fine that you have a style of game that you like. But it is also important for those that are not happy with the direction things are going share their complaints/feelings/impressions.
Isn't that the point?
And shouldn't we be happy if they can come up with a system flexible enough that we can run it the way we like it?
Well, for that to happen we can't ignore each other.
For the record: I don't have the impression WotC is ignoring anyone here, or any malice on their part towards 4e or 4e fans. That would be my biggest point of divergence from the OPs opinions.
This is the very beginning of a process. And their intentions are pretty clear from where I'm standing. So I think it's good that we provide feedback good and bad. But no need to jump to the gloom or the doom so quickly.
Time will tell if I'm wrong or right.
Sunday, 1st July, 2012, 01:57 PM #28
Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Read 0 Reviews
° Block FireLance
Admittedly, the playtest is rather ... shall we say ... simple? However, it is ... somewhat(?) ... to be expected, as it is supposed to be a playtest of the core rules.
I would certainly like to see a module for
encounterpowers that are regained after a short rest. I don't think it would be unbalancing to add them, as long as all classes and races are given approximately equal abilities, and the DM is given guidelines on how to adjust the monsters so that the game doesn't get too easy.
Frankly, whether I decide to adopt 5e or whether I decide to stay with 4e (and maybe write supplements for the other 4e fans who share my taste in gaming systems ) is more likely to depend on fundamental system assumptions such as bounded accuracy (which, frankly, I do not like ) and which will need more extensive tinkering with the system to "fix" than a simple rules module.
Sunday, 1st July, 2012, 02:00 PM #29
Magsman (Lvl 14)
Sunday, 1st July, 2012, 02:00 PM #30
Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)
It's too bad that a good first post has descended into QuoteBlockWarz.
More than 3-4 quote blocks = I'm not reading it.
By Jack7 in forum Roleplaying Games General DiscussionReplies: 47Last Post: Sunday, 12th July, 2009, 04:42 AM
By Hexmage-EN in forum Roleplaying Games General DiscussionReplies: 965Last Post: Wednesday, 13th May, 2009, 12:59 PM
By Rodrigo Istalindir in forum Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, and OSR GamingReplies: 182Last Post: Wednesday, 5th March, 2008, 12:49 PM
By TerraDave in forum Roleplaying Games General DiscussionReplies: 110Last Post: Saturday, 16th February, 2008, 12:57 AM
By Ermanaric in forum Roleplaying Games General DiscussionReplies: 46Last Post: Monday, 30th September, 2002, 03:10 AM