L4W Discussion Thread V

[MadAzolin]

Lack of DMs seems to be eternal problem, personally time schedule is quite unpredictable these days and to be honest, 4e didn't really sit particularly good with me for this model of play - RP wise is fine, but DMing combat is just pain, it can be painful even in pen and paper 4e and forum format makes it much more tedious; btw, anyone took a look at 5e - is it any good?

 

[Son of Meepo]

I've enjoyed what I've played of 5th so far. Seems even easier to DM than 4th.

 

[MadAzolin]

hm... might give it a look, saw one of play-tests a while ago and was far from impressed, they seemed to have taken 3.5 and stripped it bare of anything mildly interesting (it was a while ago however, haven't followed development); if they took good stuff of 3.5, remove broken things and fixed tedious slow grind of endless HP monsters of 4e, might be ok-ish

 

[Neurotic]

I'd prefer 4e revival here

 

[Son of Meepo]

I was someone who was also not impressed by the playtest versions. The final product is much better. If it took anything from 4e, it's giving casters at-will spells by the way of cantrips (but then again Pathfinder did that with 3.x though the 5e ones remain useful at higher levels). To me it combined the best of 3.x with the best of 1e/2e and a little bit of 4e. I have only played/DMd low level games in 5e, but so far the game balance seems good.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Yeah, lack of DMs is the eternal problem. Looks like we would have enough people for a paragon party, too - which of course means the DM needs to be fairly familiar with the system.

I like the look of 5e so far, though I've not been able to play much yet. I agree with Son of Meepo - it looks like they took 3.x and combined some ideas from 4e (I can't speak to 1/2e, never played them other than Baldur's Gate, which really doesn't count), then toned down the power curve. It fixes some of the things that bothered me about 3.x - at-wills for casters, less spell slots at higher levels (whether it keeps casters from dominating high level play is another question), limited healing outside of magic, and opportunity for martial characters to be able to do interesting things in combat other than just plain attacks without dedicating an entire build to a feat chain.

 

[Son of Meepo]

I played 2e for a long time. What parts of 5e remind me of it is the simplicity of running combat. The fact that it can be run entirely theater of the mind without requiring a grid to play hasn't been part of the game since 2e. Also, it specifically tries to leave some of the rules vague for simplicity, putting some of the rulings in the hands of the DM without trying to have a rule for everything spelled out. That was another thing that I hadn't seen a lot since 2e.

 

[dimsdale]

Hello all, I would like to get back into 4e as well. I miss it...the adventuring, killing, Rocco riding on the back of a beholder... count me in

 

[pathfinderq1]

I might be interested in playing again, either in 4e or 5e. I think we might want to wait a bit before trying to get a Living 5e setting off the ground- at least until the DMG comes out and we see what sorts of things are in there, especially for setting/campaign management.

Sadly, I think judges might be MORE important for 5e moderation, given how many things are left in the GM's hands- we probably want to maintain some level of consistency to rules interpretations.

 

[MetaVoid]

I'd like to play 4e. I don't have resources (money and will) to learn 5e.

I have paragon 12 or 13 level shaman (I have to check last dimsdale adventure XP) and subparagon invoker (level 9 or 10)

Runepriest and warlock are from LEB, [MENTION=24380]Neurotic[/MENTION]. I just noticed I prefer controllers - bear shaman, invoker, runepriest, warlock, monk - all are something-controller or pure controllers. Even when focused on healing (bear shaman/scarred healer) there are multiple low damage, high status effect powers