D&D 5E Maybe I'm just tired?

Derren · Nov 19, 2012

Starfox said:
There is no agreement about what were the good parts of 4E.

Thousand times this.
But see my fear. I have the feeling that most people playtesting are current D&D players which in most cases mean that they like/have endorsed 4E. People who were so turned off by 4E that they switched brands (Pathfinder for example) have a very minor voice in the playtest if at all.

This means 5E will just be an improved 4E which will not attract many people who dislike 4E and will certainly not get them to abandon Pathfinder. For that 5E has to be better than PF instead of 4E with some concessions.

Matrix Sorcica · Nov 19, 2012

Derren said:
This means 5E will just be an improved 4E which will not attract many people who dislike 4E and will certainly not get them to abandon Pathfinder. For that 5E has to be better than PF instead of 4E with some concessions.

Eh?
From what I've seen they're taking almost anything that was 4E and throwing it out, because 4E was baaaaaaaaad...... (and they're very, very sorry aboyt 4E, please come home, *sniff*).

Rechan · Nov 19, 2012

Blackbrrd said:
The same goes with encounter powers, you usually just use them early on to get the first mob down as fast as possible.

pemerton said:
That depends a lot on build.

And player. I for instance always held my resources til at least mid-way through the fight, for several reasons.

1) It's not always clear who the nastiest threat is at first, or what they can do. Because of various status effects, you want to save those for when they're useful.

2) Various encounter power effects are sometimes more useful. If you have a power that attacks and also grants movement, that is often best to get people out of harm's way. Same with variables like area of effect - if you have a burst power, you want to get the enemies in best positions. When your cleric is in the back, that turn undead won't be as useful until positions are gathered.

3) As a tactician, I just love waiting until the most opportune moment to unleash a power.

Tequila Sunrise · Nov 19, 2012

Matrix Sorcica said:
Eh?
From what I've seen they're taking almost anything that was 4E and throwing it out, because 4E was baaaaaaaaad...... (and they're very, very sorry aboyt 4E, please come home, *sniff*).

Yeah, this is 5e's biggest problem -- at least among fans of any particular edition. All Fans (yes, with a capital F) seem to be disappointed with how little of their favored edition is making it into 5e. Myself included.

Which is kinda funny for the One Edition to Find Them, and in 5th Edition Bind Them.

Iosue · Nov 19, 2012

Until the latest L&L, my biggest fear was that they'd give Expertise Dice to all non-caster classes, and the Fighter would again be in the lurch. But Mearls' addressed that fear in the column, saying that if they gave expertise dice to all martial characters, they'd have to find a new thing for the fighter. Sounds good.

As for complexity, I don't have any fears about that. The playtest as it stands now has quite a bit of complexity, and it's only going to get more complex from here out. That's a given, and I was always expecting that. But the complexity in the game right now fully lives up to their design goals. Those who want complexity in character design have it, while those who don't want it, don't need to have it.

gweinel · Nov 19, 2012

My biggest fear is that i will not be able to play my game the way i like. I like the pace and the feeling of a 2e and 3e edition game. The fragile “power level” of the 1st lvl characters and the route they have to take to become heroes. The course and the strategy that the heroes have to take during an adventuring day (healing issue). The distinct feeling of magic and the resource management in a daily only magic system.
I am not saying that this is the only play style I want to see but I want mine (and my gaming group) style to be supported.

The disappointing thing is this fear got bigger during the last months. I see gradually all the aspects that I liked in 5e edition to change to a game that don’t suit my needs: The healing hasn’t fixed, the power level of the starting heroes resembles more of the 4e than of the previous editions and the wizards are based on at wills, at encounters and dailys powers like again of 4e
.
Right now I am quite disheartened as you can see.

Starfox · Nov 20, 2012

My fear is that it won't be a commercial success. Role-playing games need a market leader that can get new players into the game. I may or may not play that game ( I didn't play 2 ed for example), but I want it to be there.

ferratus · Nov 20, 2012

Lanefan said:
More and more it's looking like too-complex 3e and 4e stuff, or transparent variants thereon, is going to be part of the core framework. Bleah.

I agree with this. I don't mind a complex version of D&D for those that want it, but I don't have the patience for complex rules systems that bog down play anymore. No feats, no skills, no minis, no special attack rules, and a magic system simpler than Vancian for me... but all of those things for those who want it.

Confirming simply reduces the chance of an actual critical hit occurring, which is good; as 1-in-20 is simply too frequent and thus not as special.

That's only once per session (per player), perhaps twice, so I have to disagree here. All that's left is the grind if there is no "wahoo" moment once and awhile to break the monotany.

However, even if I was to agree with your point, there has got to be a better way of making critical hits "special" by getting someone excited and then taking it away. A minor crit, with a confirmed crit being a major crit would be better perhaps. However, exceptional strength was always a letdown when you rolled 18, and then just rolled 10 on the percentile die. That's why everyone cheated with scores of 18(75) to 18(00).

Lanefan · Nov 20, 2012

ferratus said:
That's only once per session (per player), perhaps twice, so I have to disagree here. All that's left is the grind if there is no "wahoo" moment once and awhile to break the monotany.

It also depends on how quick and-or swingy your combats are to begin with. Ours tend to (mostly) be pretty quick and rather swingy; and we use a potentially deadly - though very simple - critical system that on an exceptional roll can multiply that swing's damage into the stratosphere*.

* - the single-swing damage record in my current game is 112 points; in a system where even the most major of monsters rarely start with over 100 h.p. Fortunately the 112 points was done by a PC into a monster, not the reverse.

ferratus said:
However, even if I was to agree with your point, there has got to be a better way of making critical hits "special" by getting someone excited and then taking it away.

It's like a prime scoring chance in hockey or a line drive in baseball - it doesn't always come off no matter how good it looks to begin with (the goalie makes the save, the line drive is right at the shortstop, etc.).

Lan-"not every ticket's a winner"-efan

ferratus · Nov 20, 2012

Lanefan said:
It also depends on how quick and-or swingy your combats are to begin with. Ours tend to (mostly) be pretty quick and rather swingy; and we use a potentially deadly - though very simple - critical system that on an exceptional roll can multiply that swing's damage into the stratosphere*.

Exploding crits are fun (if unbalancing), but criticals in 3e are just a minor bonus of double damage (which may also have less power than a regular hit). Making something that minor, which is the few breaks from the monotony of "roll to hit, roll damage" and then taking it away is not very interesting at all.

Besides, wasn't ctitical confirms just brought in because they took away critical fumbles anyway, not for any real game balance issue?

It's like a prime scoring chance in hockey or a line drive in baseball - it doesn't always come off no matter how good it looks to begin with (the goalie makes the save, the line drive is right at the shortstop, etc.).

Yeah, but that's AC defense and low damage die already isn't it? What I think the the feel of rolling to confirm critical hits is like is like taking every goal in hockey and making the player take another shot against goal to see if it actually goes in.