How do you like your martial characters?

[Steely_Dan]

As they are going with adventure design, not encounter design, I do not think we will see encounter abilities/powers in 5th Ed, which makes me happy.

 

[BobTheNob]

And 30 years ago "The Dukes of Hazzard" was one of the most popular TV shows, personal computers were a dream , the most "realistic" aliens on film were muppets, kids were the TV remotes and 8-track tapes were still a big deal. Times change and things evolve. Staying stuck 30 years ago will do nothing but leave a game as a dusty footnote.

And yet my daughters favorite game for the ipad is Tetris. The fact that times evolve doesnt mean that good game design gets old.

Now, there is a truth in your statement. There are alot of things from the old games I distinctly do not want to see the return of (Variable XP by class, Level limits by race). As far as I am concerned, these are the sort of things which evolution has moved us away from, and good ridence.

At the same time, for all of its mechanical glory, 4e did point out to me that not every game evolution was good. There were some things from the older editions that were better handled.

I agree, games should evolve, but Im really glad WOTC said they are going back to previous editions for inspiration. There is gold in every version, hopefully they can identify it.

 

[Klaus]

As they are going with adventure design, not encounter design, I do not think we will see encounter abilities/powers in 5th Ed, which makes me happy.

Possibly. But I'd like to see abilities/spells/prayers/whatevers that you regained after a short rest (effectively making them 2/day abilties, but never more than 1/fight).

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

Seconded.

Poor fighter, the wizard have spells that only then can cast, the clerics miracles, the thief backstab... the fighter is "better" in things that everyone can do... it isn´t like you need dedication to fight with a sword.

 

[Mercutio01]

I like the second option, but I wouldn't mind something like a Critical Hit triggering something in addition to doing extra damage. Like a class feature that says "Critical Hits with a warhammer, in addition to the critical hit damage, also stun the target." Or something along those lines. Sort of like the FATE ladder or ICONS successes or the Apocalypse World on 11+ "Yes, and..."

But I'd like to keep trips and bull rushes and disarms, etc, as full at-will options to replace any attack.

 

[Hussar]

In theory, perhaps. But it wasn't much of a problem at the height of D&D's popularity 30 years ago.

Yes, it really, really was a problem back then too. A rereading of the Dragon magazines (and other periodicals) of the time and the fact that we have a bajillion knock off D&D games pretty much proves that it was a problem.

It might not have been a problem for you, and that's great, but, for some of us? Yeah, it was a huge problem.

And, really, I'd like the "height of D&D's popularity" to last more than 18 months.

 

[Derren]

Poor fighter, the wizard have spells that only then can cast, the clerics miracles, the thief backstab... the fighter is "better" in things that everyone can do... it isn´t like you need dedication to fight with a sword.

Even in 3E a fighter full attacking you is quite a scary thing.

I do not see the need to give every class their own resources, Instead one class can do "the basic stuff" very good, much better than everyone else without the need for resource management.
That is the fighters specialty.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Poor fighter, the wizard have spells that only then can cast, the clerics miracles, the thief backstab... the fighter is "better" in things that everyone can do...

Not really.

The wizard can't fight effectively.
The rogue can't fight effectively.
The cleric can fight, but not as well as the fighter.

 

[Hussar]

Even in 3E a fighter full attacking you is quite a scary thing.

I do not see the need to give every class their own resources, Instead one class can do "the basic stuff" very good, much better than everyone else without the need for resource management.
That is the fighters specialty.

Scary compared to what?

The wizard, beyond about 7th level, is a much, much more dangerous opponent. The cleric or the druid as well. Heck, even a BARD can be a more devastating opponent than a fighter. Particularly if we're going to go with the idea of "full attacks" which means at least 6th level.

A fighter can kill one PC. A caster can kill the group. Which one do you think is scarier?

Or, to put it another way. Which would you rather face, a 3e Tarrasque or a 3e Elder Wyrm dragon of the same CR? One is a chump that goes down in three rounds. The other destroys cities.

 

[Herschel]

My post must have been too short to have context, because I completely agree with you.

I'm just saying those things weren't problems before. Preferences may have changed, sure, I have no doubts about that.

The fact is, it's easier to start with a simple core and add complexity than it is to strip complexity out.

I go back & forth on this. Is a simple core the way to draw new people? At times I think yeah, but then I look at how quickly young people pick up certain things and think if it's too simple they'll look at it, think it's boring and move one. I look at kids' computer skills, which in grade school surpasses my parents, even though my mother worked for the DoT for years. Then I look at reading skills and so many kids are behind in reading comprehension. Lay it out in charts and tables and they're good, but drop some heavy prose and their eyes glaze over. I still peruse my 1E and 2E books even when I'm not using them but it seems younger people aren't tought to approach the written word the same way.