D&D 5E Another Critical Hits 5E Report

[Herschel]

Thats what inflated piles of hitpoints that exist for no other reason other than to make sure some chump stays in the fight X number of rounds until the PCs can get him to tap out by grinding that headlock. There are no effects that can mercifully end the torturous grind through the hit point pile except the DM calling it because his sanity was what was put in the headlock.

Your edition warring aside, a "boss fight" should be against an actually dangerous foe, not a chump. That's a DM problem, not a system issue.

 

[grimslade]

A minute combat is epic if it is 5 minutes of combat with a quick flow. Non epic is 2 hours to simulate 4 rounds. Or 40.
Shea writes columns trying to get the most out of 4E. I don't think he was edition flaming. Players become reliant on systems and a new edition throws out those preconceptions. It is fun to watch. The comment made me think about how reliant I had become on my character sheet or mod notes to run. I my 1E and 2E days I barely looked to see what was on my sheet. I had a piece note paper for ammo and rations and another for spells. With 3E the character sheet became the answer to everything. 4E even more, plus you could have cards too. You can run 3.x and 4E in marvelously creative ways with devious players and maniacal rat bastard DMs, but the rules impede that a little. You have to work around looking at paper to grab your answer.
I think the caveat that a system works great at low levels and without option bloat should be heeded. Playtesters are going to have their merry evil way with these rules soon, without the carefully preset experience at DDXP. This is where the stresses will show. I want to see people work these rules over worse than an Torquemada with a migraine.

 

[Roland55]

I know I'm new on these boards but geez, we have to learn to grow a skin guys. It was a blog, it was his opinion. Obviously he feels 4e players have a sense of entitlement. Who cares?

If we force everyone to tip-toe around every little thing we'll never get any decent discussion or analysis of 5th edition. I'd rather get honest, unfiltered opinions and impressions.

Sounds reasonable to me.

A little patience ... a little tolerance.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Neither was any-E.

If you carry a chip on your shoulder, someone's going to knock it off.

 

[Ichneumon]

I know I'm new on these boards but geez, we have to learn to grow a skin guys.

Thanks to being a 4e gamer for over three years, I'm now officially double-bagged.

 

[Jack99]

I think it is good for you that you liked THAC0 and vancian magic and all that. At some point I liked that, too. But different versions of DnD appeal to different people. That is why some people do not like 4E.
If you want to have a version of the game that appeals to most players (it can never appeal to ALL of them, I don't think), you have to analyse what mechanical elements appeal and do not appeal to players. Because there are very distinguishable forms of taste in gameplay.

You have no problem with that combat example? That is fine. I, however, do. And I have never made the claim that this form of combat is a less valid way to play. I was and am speaking about taste. And about the fact that in my experience, 4E combat does not happen that way. So my claim is that the new edition should offer more than what that combat example has to offer in order to appeal to players of younger editions. 4E combat, in my experience, is different.
To call that "putting somebody in boxes" seems just a little far fetched to me. And it is an aweful way to start a conversation.

Now, this has nothing to do with the fact that I, too, wish for the next edition of DnD to succeed. Actually I am exited about it. But tastes differ and if WotC wants to cater to my style of combat and play, I need something more that "wizard casts a sleep spell and the fight is over" and "let's all go back to 10' poles" (by the way, I think it is very likely the next edition will offer that).

If you would like to talk about that, and whether 4E combat actually IS different from the described example, that is fine with me, after all this a discussion forum. But calling somebody "annoying" is not the form of discussion I am used to and willing to participate in.

You are shifting the goal posts. We were talking about you. You said:

I do not think that the combat example above will impress those who like 4E for example. Neither will they be awed by having to use 10' poles again.

You made a very broad generalization about 4e players, which, in my world, amounts to putting them in a box. Maybe it is a language thing. Anyway, as I explained quite clearly in my post, I am a 4e player (DM rather), I love 4e, 4e is my favorite edition so far, and yet, I am jazzed about how things were described. So obviously not all 4e players will take issue with the combat described.

 

[Hassassin]

Your edition warring aside, a "boss fight" should be against an actually dangerous foe, not a chump. That's a DM problem, not a system issue.

Whether someone is a dangerous foe doesn't have to correlate with how long the fight lasts.

You can have a one round TPK or a ten round fight where no PC loses hp. I wish both of those extremes are rare when the DM doesn't want it, of course.

 

[Tortoise]

Your edition warring aside, a "boss fight" should be against an actually dangerous foe, not a chump. That's a DM problem, not a system issue.

As I said before, a boss doesn't have to be able to fight to be dangerous or a worthy target.
A wimp with resources and connections can cause a party more trouble than just a big brute of a fighter.

 

[marleykat]

After reading the whole thread at the Big Purple and seeing similar comments on this thread I come away confused that so many people are completely overreacting to what could be defined as the choice of poorly chosen word, at worse. Made worse by knowing little information and no context yet some are carrying on as if personally attacked, much ado about nothing and completely missing what was actually said in favor of over parsing a couple words to prove some personal agenda about WotC hating 4e.

 

[JonWake]

The Big Purple makes this and the WoTC boards look like a cuddle-fest. Those people are vicious.

 

[marleykat]

The Big Purple makes this and the WoTC boards look like a cuddle-fest. Those people are vicious.

IMO they're ok they're just a heavily pro 4e forum. Not my preference but not really vicious. You want vicious? I would say SA forums and TGD are vicious. Now for fun the RPGSite is the polar opposite of TBP and not just in board /mod policy.