D&D 5E You can't necessarily go back

[Tony Vargas]

But giving the designers feedback on what you personally and subjectively find to be bad or wrong is exactly the kind of feedback they want. Keep that stuff to yourself, and the designers will never hear your opinion, and will instead listen to what everyone else complains about.

Hopefully you end up in the majority, and the designers serve up a game that you want to play. But telling them your frank opinions can only help you get there (though as with all criticism, being civil and tolerant of contradicting views is important).

While I have to admit that that makes perfect sense to me, it's not how 5e is being spun. 5e isn't being represented as a game for 51% of D&Ders, it's being touted as a game for everyone whose ever played D&D. Leaving aside how that excludes new players, that means a very, very inclusive version of D&D, and you don't get 'inclusive' by cutting things that some (or even most) people don't like - you get there by including things that anybody likes, and letting those who don't like them do the cutting, themselves.

I could go on about all the things that are wrong with that, myself, but instead I find myself 'defending' it. :shrug:

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Each edition has has a little inflation in terms of 1st-level hps and bonuses. I don't think it's insurmountable, for the 'off the farm' style of play, it's only really an issue if you want to regularly kill low-level PCs (if you want off-the-farm Luke Skywalker to die in his first encounter with stormtroopers). The notorious /old/ old-school style where you don't even bother naming your character until 5th level. While I'm not trying to prove that is style badwrongfun (I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader), lowering first level hps is not exactly rocket science - the worst that could happen is that your PCs die a lot as a result, and /that's what you're going for./

Why do you automatically assume low level "off the farm" PC's are just going to die and why do people keep using movies as a reference? Scripted D&D is one of many styles but it's not a style that I prefer and I don't want Next to be built around that as if it's the default.

I think people forget that this game involves dice which means there is a chance that PC's will fail. Movies and books do not work this way. No matter how many times you read it or watch, it will never ever change. What happens is set in stone and will always be, D&D does not work this way. Can you play that way? Yes of course you can but no edition is fully built that way. 4th edition is built more towards that style of play but there are still ways that will enable your PC to die and thus fail in it's said task.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Since the last two paragraphs weren't in reference to the balance issue, what exactly were you replying to, if not the style of my campaign and how well the 4e rule set works for it?

-O

You still haven't shown me anywhere that I mentioned about knowing your campaign better than you do.

 

[Shadeydm]

Each edition has has a little inflation in terms of 1st-level hps and bonuses. I don't think it's insurmountable, for the 'off the farm' style of play, it's only really an issue if you want to regularly kill low-level PCs (if you want off-the-farm Luke Skywalker to die in his first encounter with stormtroopers). The notorious /old/ old-school style where you don't even bother naming your character until 5th level. While I'm not trying to prove that is style badwrongfun (I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader), lowering first level hps is not exactly rocket science - the worst that could happen is that your PCs die a lot as a result, and /that's what you're going for./

To suggest that 4E 1st level HP inflation is a little higher than than previous editions is like saying Greece's inflation and jobless rates might be a little high lol.
a 1st level 4E Fighter with a 16 con has 115 HP without even trying to optimize that is way beyond a little higher than any edition that came before it.

 

[slobo777]

To suggest that 4E 1st level HP inflation is a little higher than than previous editions is like saying Greece's inflation and jobless rates might be a little high lol.
a 1st level 4E Fighter with a 16 con has 115 HP without even trying to optimize that is way beyond a little higher than any edition that came before it.

Eh ?

115 HP One hundred and fifteen hit points ?

 

[Bluenose]

PC's start out higher in power than usual so the "straight off the farm" style doesn't really work well unless your campaign happens in "super hero" world where even the lowest commoner has some power.

So is magic that easy, that you can just come off the farm and start using it like - not a master, but you're certainly not finding it difficult to cast easy spells, and you're probably quite knowledgeable about a variety of academic topics? Perhaps your farm boy became really, really familiar with locks and traps, because we all know how much machinery is in use on farms. Maybe they studied theology while milking cattle, and one day a god decided they should be a cleric. Perhaps they learnt multiple instruments, and studied enough random trivia to qualify as a bard, while incidentally developing magical ability.

Or maybe there's actually some training involved in all D&D careers (maybe not sorceror), and the person straight off the farm is an unrealistic idea in every edition and should be disregarded.

 

[Hussar]

Eh ?

115 HP One hundred and fifteen hit points ?

I imagine that he's counting every healing surge in there. Which, of course, is about as logical as saying that 3e characters had infinite HP, since there was no limit on the number of times you can heal.

But, yeah, spin that spin.

 

[Shadeydm]

I imagine that he's counting every healing surge in there. Which, of course, is about as logical as saying that 3e characters had infinite HP, since there was no limit on the number of times you can heal.

But, yeah, spin that spin.

Healing surges unlike healing require no external mechanism they are your hit points no magic required just 5 minutes.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Or maybe there's actually some training involved in all D&D careers (maybe not sorceror), and the person straight off the farm is an unrealistic idea in every edition and should be disregarded.

How in the hell is it unrealistic? The farm boy's father could have been a fighter in his day so he taught his son every chance he got, or the local old wizard could be teaching the boy after his work is done and allowing him to take home books to read in his spare time. All it takes is a little imagination.

Your line of thinking is unrealistic and needs to be disregarded.

 

[Emerikol]

That's rather a meaningless distinction. Sticking an "IMHO" on an offensive post doesn't take the offense away.

Here's a thought. If you really just want inclusion, and to see the things you like, confine your posts to saying positive things about the stuff you like, rather than belittling the preferences of others as 'dissociated mechanics,' or 'board games not RPGs' or the like. Stop blasting the things from 4e that you don't want in 5e - as a DM, you'll always be able to remove them - and just talk up the bits you like and would like to see in 5e.

This post reveals to me that you just stopped by to comment and have not really been following this thread. There was no edition war going on here. No edition came up in the conversation until this guy mentioned it. And I emphasized that these styles of play are totally possible in any edition of the game when I responded. I may feel one way or another about an edition but in this conversation that was not the discussion.

My point was that there are things that distinguish rpgs (all of them) from board games and mmos. And that I want those things in my games because without those things, I could play much better board games or mmos. It has really gotten so bad around her that I'm getting these kneejerk 4e defenses on things where I never mentioned or even implied 4e was in particular at fault. Whether 4e fosters stuff I don't like is beside the point. The point is that I want whats good about rpgs and what sets them apart from other styles of games to be emphasized in 5e.

Some things that set rpgs apart from other types of games.
1. Open ended plot and DM adjudication.
2. Group cooperation towards a goal instead of competition.
3. Long running character development.
4. Immersive campaign worlds full of things never seen before.

FOR ME, showing up once a week with a totally new set of players and running an encounter is unsatisfying. That sort of thing has been done regardless of edition. 4e has perhaps pushed it harder but thats probably because of sales and the desire to get more new players.

FOR ME, playing a game exactly according to RAW where every outcome is defined crystal clear without any adjudication by the DM is like playing an mmo. MMO's do it because of the contraints of programming. I'm assuming pen and paper rpgs do it because they want to limit DM error and make life easier. And I'm fine if others like this approach. It is not for me. I want and expect more from my pen and paper games. When I can go buy a game that does everything for you top to bottom, there has to be some compelling difference for me to spend probably 500 to 1000 dollars worth of time developing a campaign and scheduling players to show up somewhere.