April 3rd, Rule of 3

[Sunseeker]

Wowzers.
Considering some of the negative commentary by Mearls and Monte about 4e, I am surprised to find that so many things from 4e might be part of 5e.

4e was good science. Trash talking it makes all the old-editioners feel good about their modern edition hate. It's lip service, they're not going to throw out what they feel is good design just to appease oldschoolers.

This isn't the "make everyone happy" edition, it's the "lets find some common ground" edition.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Self-healing and non-magical healing are in? Awesome.

It's going to be fun to see who will be all dog in a manger about this piece of news.

It's alright with me. If they decide to try to dress up 4e in old school terms, it will likely do as well as 4e.

Just means more money into Paizo's pockets

 

[Essenti]

It's alright with me. If they decide to try to dress up 4e in old school terms, it will likely do as well as 4e.

Just means more money into Paizo's pockets

Seems you have your perfect edition already, I'm very happy for you.

 

[Sunseeker]

It's alright with me. If they decide to try to dress up 4e in old school terms, it will likely do as well as 4e.

Just means more money into Paizo's pockets

If your idea of compromise and uniting the editions is to throw out everything and everyone in the edition you don't like, why are you here?

 

[kevtar]

I like healing surges and the way HP are considered in 4e. I also play 1st Edition and like how HP are considered in that edition as well. How can I reconcile the two? Easy, here's Gary's thoughts on HP (DMG, p.34)

Each character has a varying number of hit points, just as monsters do. These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being Killed. Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This is the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic fighter can take that much punishment. The some holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and
the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.​

So, the interpretation of HP in 4e is very similar to the interpretation of HP from 1e, and they want to continue this trend into 5e by considering the use of surges, non-magical healing and the like?

Ok.

 

[kevtar]

I like healing surges and the way HP are considered in 4e. I also play 1st Edition and like how HP are considered in that edition as well. How can I reconcile the two? Easy, here's Gary's thoughts on HP (DMG, p.34)

Each character has a varying number of hit points, just as monsters do. These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being Killed. Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This is the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic fighter can take that much punishment. The some holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.​

So, the interpretation of HP in 4e is very similar to the interpretation of HP from 1e, and they want to continue this trend into 5e by considering the use of surges, non-magical healing and the like?

Ok.

 

[Janaxstrus]

If your idea of compromise and uniting the editions is to throw out everything and everyone in the edition you don't like, why are you here?

Everyone? I have not suggested anyone should leave or not participate, let alone everyone.

I have problems with non-magical "magic" like healing, I have issues with daily/encounter/etc powers, especially when they are non-magic Magic (including the ones in 3.5), and I don't like some of the 4e terms used, especially those overly game-y. I dislike the overly tactical nature, at the expense of the feel (for me, ymmv)


If too many of those things are in the base system of 5e, it will not be something that appeals to me or the dozen or so people I game with. If that's the case, we'll continue to take our dollars elsewhere. I am about 99% sure I am not alone in disliking many of those changes.


On the other hand, I don't want THAC0 coming back, Non-Weapon Proficiency, Demihuman level limits, CODZilla, PunPun, 18/00 strengths, 20d6 fireballs, or any of that stuff either. The difference? They aren't talking about putting the stuff I don't care for from older editions back into the new system. And if they start talking any of those, I'll be railing against those as well.

I know WotC people frequent these forums, and it would do everyone a disservice if the only feedback they got was people praising everything. I don't feel that making it known that some of these things are deal breakers is out of line. Whether the game succeeds or fails, they should at least hear from people what they do and don't like, so they can't claim ignorance.

 

[Sunseeker]

Everyone? I have not suggested anyone should leave or not participate, let alone everyone.

I have problems with non-magical "magic" like healing, I have issues with daily/encounter/etc powers, especially when they are non-magic Magic (including the ones in 3.5), and I don't like some of the 4e terms used, especially those overly game-y. I dislike the overly tactical nature, at the expense of the feel (for me, ymmv)


If too many of those things are in the base system of 5e, it will not be something that appeals to me or the dozen or so people I game with. If that's the case, we'll continue to take our dollars elsewhere. I am about 99% sure I am not alone in disliking many of those changes.


On the other hand, I don't want THAC0 coming back, Non-Weapon Proficiency, Demihuman level limits, CODZilla, PunPun, 18/00 strengths, 20d6 fireballs, or any of that stuff either. The difference? They aren't talking about putting the stuff I don't care for from older editions back into the new system. And if they start talking any of those, I'll be railing against those as well.

I know WotC people frequent these forums, and it would do everyone a disservice if the only feedback they got was people praising everything. I don't feel that making it known that some of these things are deal breakers is out of line. Whether the game succeeds or fails, they should at least hear from people what they do and don't like, so they can't claim ignorance.

When you make statements like "well if this is in, I'm out!" that's not critique. That's the guy who stands around saying "If you don't give me what I want I won't play your game." Critique is "hey I don't like this feature, here's why, and here's some constructive criticism on the kind of solution I'd like to see".

I see a lot of comments like "well if they only get praise how will they know what people don't like!" ALL over game forums. Rarely do any of these comments come paired with actual critique, they usually come paired with "do what I want or I'm not buying". Wizards can't market to that audience, they simply can't, because that market doesn't tell them what you want only what you dont want.

 

[BryonD]

So, the interpretation of HP in 4e is very similar to the interpretation of HP from 1e, and they want to continue this trend into 5e by considering the use of surges, non-magical healing and the like?

Ok.

HP themselves, sure.

But the extension of this to include surges doesn't stand up to inspection.
There was nothing comparable to surges in 1E.

And I still don't see that they are ready to blunder again on that front.

There is plenty of space between 4e style surges and simply having "non-magical self healing". In 3E a fighter can non-magically self heal. It just takes roughly a week. It takes a hell of a lot less time than anything "realistic", but it still takes meaningful time. And it is "non-magical self-healing".

The fundamental basis of surges as a means of restoring HP is a departure from all prior editions. HP themselves being comparable is true and it does nothing to address the issue of surges.

 

[Janaxstrus]

When you make statements like "well if this is in, I'm out!" that's not critique. That's the guy who stands around saying "If you don't give me what I want I won't play your game." Critique is "hey I don't like this feature, here's why, and here's some constructive criticism on the kind of solution I'd like to see".

I see a lot of comments like "well if they only get praise how will they know what people don't like!" ALL over game forums. Rarely do any of these comments come paired with actual critique, they usually come paired with "do what I want or I'm not buying". Wizards can't market to that audience, they simply can't, because that market doesn't tell them what you want only what you dont want.

You obviously have skipped over my suggestions in many other thread then. (FYI, my "healing is in, I'm out" was in direct reference to the post about giving up on 5e already, aka hyperbole)

Either way, I don't feel the need to justify my participation anymore. If you find my posts out of line, please report me and move on.