D&D 5E Are you happy with the Battlemaster and Fighter Maneuvers? Other discussions as well.

[DEFCON 1]

Well, we certainly wouldn't want a D&D that works as a generic fantasy rpg now would we?

Nope. You're exactly correct. That's what GURPS Fantasy is for.

We want a D&D that works as D&D. And individual classes having individual class mechanics is a large part of that.

Best of luck in your future endeavors playing whatever game you end up playing if it ain't gonna be 5E.

 

[Halivar]

Well, we certainly wouldn't want a D&D that works as a generic fantasy rpg now would we? Because...

You're not talking about "omni-D&D", you're talking about not-D&D. D&D is not, never has been, and never will be generic fantasy. If I wanted to play truly generic fantasy upon which I could lay completely new fundamental conceits I would play SW or GURPS.

If it's really the unification D&D that was promised, it'll be able to do more than just knockoff 4e.

Nothing we've been talking about is specific to 4E, so that dig is kind of irrelevant, isn't it?

 

[Gadget]

Well, we certainly wouldn't want a D&D that works as a generic fantasy rpg now would we? Because...

If it's really the unification D&D that was promised, it'll be able to do more than just knockoff 4e.

I fail to see how this is a 'knockoff' of 4e. This sounds like sour grapes. D&D has always been a class based game with those classes being the focus of what a character is and can do. Having things like combat maneuvers with a fighter hardly violates that.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

56 votes in the poll so far, and the OP only got one person to vote with him in the poll. I am trying to recall a poll backfiring worse, and having trouble thinking of one.

[Edit - 65 votes now, still just the one guy who joins the OP's vote in saying "no" ]

I haven't even voted yet wise ass.

 

[Mistwell]

I haven't even voted yet wise ass.

Oh OK you got two people to agree with you I am not saying your view is "bad" by the way. I just found it odd. I'm not sure I had seen that before. Usually if the topic is hot enough for a poll, then the impetus for it is enough for many to agree.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

No, it's headed in a direction that results in a game I am not interested in playing. On top of other mechanics I find problematic, such as ones that end up needing their own sub-forum. Since the playtest closed they have been describing features which make it highly unlikely I'll buy 5th edition.

And the above quote is why I think it's pretty much pointless to do polls like this anymore with regards to 5e. The people (like Rygar, and myself, incidentally), already see a game we are not likely to play. The majority of people left who comment on this sub-forum are, IMHO, "pro-5e" (or at least, optimistic about it). Ergo, polls are going to be skewed towards the positive side of 5e. The rest of us don't care anymore, so aren't going to bother with it.

It's sad, really. I was quite enthused about 5e when I heard Monty was in on it...and as soon as they dumped him, I knew that was the end of any reasonable hope for something I may have really liked. He seemed to want (and understand) the game needed to have a very simplistic base-line. Initially, I was under the impression 5e would have rules that could, literally, be described in the space of about a dozen pages. Tops. The other 120+ pages would be 'extras' that a DM could pick and choose to add into his game. The point was..."SIMPLE" was the baseline upon which everything else could be added. I'm talking "Each side rolls d6 for initiative; highest goes first" style base. I'm talking "3d6 in order, no adjustments for anything" style base. I'm talking "Human, Elf, Dwarf and Halfling" style base. All future supplements would be based on that, well, base. Adventure modules could be categorized towards one style of play/assumptions (e.g., "1e, high-magic", "3e, low-magic, high tactics", etc.).

Anyway...yeah. There's my 2¢.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[DEFCON 1]

Maybe you need to wait for the Starter Set to be released before you make definitive declarations about how the game has turned out.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Initially, I was under the impression 5e would have rules that could, literally, be described in the space of about a dozen pages.

I bet the basic set is gonna be right up yer alley, my friend.

 

[Mistwell]

Hiya.



And the above quote is why I think it's pretty much pointless to do polls like this anymore with regards to 5e. The people (like Rygar, and myself, incidentally), already see a game we are not likely to play. The majority of people left who comment on this sub-forum are, IMHO, "pro-5e" (or at least, optimistic about it). Ergo, polls are going to be skewed towards the positive side of 5e. The rest of us don't care anymore, so aren't going to bother with it.

If that is the case, why are you posting to the 5e threads still? Serious question. I don't play Savage Worlds, so I don't post or read the Savage Worlds forums. If you already know where you're headed with 5e...why are you still here?

It's sad, really. I was quite enthused about 5e when I heard Monty was in on it...and as soon as they dumped him,

Uh, he quit, they did not fire him. And, how much of a fan of him are you, if you can't even spell his name?

I knew that was the end of any reasonable hope for something I may have really liked. He seemed to want (and understand) the game needed to have a very simplistic base-line.

LOL wow. You have it backwards. Monte wanted more customization and complexity in the game, not less.

 

[Halivar]

LOL wow. You have it backwards. Monte wanted more customization and complexity in the game, not less.

IIRC (always a dangerous assumption for me), the thing he was pushing hardest was the static DC for more stuff, which ended up being the signature mechanic of Numenera.