Search results

I find it a bit naive for people to believe that a game whose primary focus is going back to how things were in previous editions while removing everything that was innovative, unique, and wonderful about 4E is going to appeal to the 4E community to any significant degree.

Where's the system tolerance for multiple playstyles in this? How does what you describe specifically apply to Next? Should Next do things your way and only your way? Is it possible for Next to be flexible and be able to give everybody what they want?

Last time I heard, the design and development teams both numbered 3 people. Ever since 4E's launch, they've been firing people and these people haven't ever seemed like they were being replaced. Hell, after Monte quit he was never replaced.

They're more or less developing it with what looks like a skeleton crew.

Gamers are split on the issue. The problem is that a game intended to appeal to the widest section of D&D players possible shouldn't be picking favorites.

I find that hard to accept when they speak of removing major styles of D&D from Next, like removing the idea of numerous supplemental material that has been a mainstay of D&D for the past 12 years.

If they must pick one, then they must be honest with us and stop lying about 5E being for everybody.

In your opinion I take the opposite opinion, and I would like to see Next cater to both opinions, which they are not currently doing.

I neither approve or disapprove of simple and lightweight. What I want is deep character creation and progression. Those two things are usually but not necessarily in conflict. I haven't seen any sign of deep character generation coming from the playtests, so what the article just said leads me...

That is one perspective. Another perspective, echoing Nemesis above, having piles of options to choose from when building and progressing characters is a big part of enjoying D&D to many of us.

What will Next do for those of us who were looking forward to the splat treadmill?

"You don't want rules, so we're not going to make any. We suggest that you just role play it."

Skill Challenges just aren't that combat-ty. It just wouldn't feel right.

Halo is an endless stream of minions. In D&D that would get old pretty fast IMO. It really isn't a good example, they aren't even close to the same sort of game.

That is a load of crap because the reverse isn't true, or is it? Can you re-fluff healing into mitigation? The problem with mitigation is that certain limits are placed on it in terms of timing. Mitigation either has to be performed before, during, or in immediate reaction to damage being taken...

The way to do that in 4E would be to develop a system where in the trivial fights they end as soon as the PCs have clearly won. Play the combat as normal until the tipping point is passed, and then end it right there.

If monsters drop fast and PCs dont, combat is boring because its trivial and non-challenging. If PCs drop fast, the game is too lethal.

What kills cinematic for me is the PCs actions being boring and mundane and having to rest because of injury or running out of 'bullets'. Being fast paced is more important than being fast. As long as combat is fast paced and exciting, it can take 45-60 minutes and I'm fine with it.

Conversely, the alienation of people who prefer metagame mechanics, or people who prefer mechanics that the metagame focus enabled indirectly shouldn't be a suprise.

What kind of Sorcerer? Close or ranged? Cha/Str or Cha/Dex? Your answers change the dilettante power you should take.