Neonchameleon
Legend
First, thanks for all the feedback, especially the critical parts. I will say two things straight off.
First the feedback is based on the idea that you are supposed to be able to play any edition of D&D in D&D Next. The feedback is based explicitely on that. If D&D Next were to have a different stated design goal/philosophy (e.g. "Back to the Dungeon") my comments would not be relevant.
If so they are going a remarkably stupid way about things. The Monte Cook "Passive Perception" issue was bad enough. But when Tom LaPille was actively deceptive about the way 4e worked that was stupid. If he hadn't mentioned the 4e Action Economy or had just talked about the removal of minor actions as a change from 4e I don't think anyone would have cared. But the "doesn't understand 4e" is the polite interpretation. (The impolite one is "actively and intentionally deceptive about 4e, deliberately annoying 4e fans").
False on both counts. Every scene needs a source of tension. But "Sit on the fighter's head - he's a fighter and therefore shouldn't be allowed to talk" is an issue. (See, for instance, the Decker problem I outlined)
And I not only call your suggestion false, I call it actively insulting.
You know how many fights the Warpriest in the Caves of Chaos got through with one casting of Spiritual Hammer? Six.
You are missing one unexplained point of to hit. You also have one unexplained point of AC extra. Even bigger for being on the battle line.
Well you might be. I'm playing a fighter because I have a character concept in mind and fighter's the closest match.
And besides... how much "flexibility" does the 4e Fighter have? All of their powers equate to "Kill More Stuff" or "Be Hard to Kill", just like the Fighter from any other edition. How is this a new thing?
Becuase the Fighter's interrupt attacks are notably good as the entire class is built with that in mind. The second Guardian feat stands in isolation.
Of course you don't. They just encourage it.
Strawman. You can't enforce teamwork.
Not for design. A skeleton, yes.
It was. And, if you didn't notice, there was a recent article on maneuvers.
You're years out of date. See the Slayer for details.
Did you follow the linked At Will skirmish? You at least can have two distinctly different options.
I'm not sure I did that per se? Context matters.
Both played and DM'd. And speed of play is not the same as ease of play. It's the speed that's been praised, and it is faster. I stated specific reasons why ease wasn't so good. And why ease works in 4e - notably I have literally never needed to look something up that wasn't setting specific in over a year.
Of course they do! However a push means you aren't attacking. It's also a glaring case of "Mother, May I?" And is literally something I tried in the playtest (pushing rats into the pit) and got no benefit out of.
I've seldom had trouble *shrug*
Once more I have to ask "Did you even read my post?" And "do you play 4e?" To stop the kobold skirmishers, knock them down or pin them in place with defender abilities. Melee the artillery. Immobilise or slow and kite the Brutes. Mark, mark, and Defender Aura anything. There are plenty of ways.
Most skirmishers are built around the principle "Do low damage unless they have combat advantage when they do high damage". So stop them flanking. Artillery is based around the principle "Do high damage at range and low in melee". Modern lurkers are based round the "Attack and be vulnerable every other turn" principle. Brutes are "High damage in melee, none or low at range".
Less of the Ad Hominem please. I run WHFRP. I'm looking seriously at 13th Age right now as a step beyond 4e. D&D next has stated design criteria.
So find a way to use your trained skills by engaging with the fiction. Skill challenges are, I'll admit, very badly presented and often badly run. And how on earth do you know they can only be used once in the challenge in advance?
This is why I haven't gone into detail about them.
Streetwise and history to work out a shortcut.
You mean you took no social skills? That's a choice.
First the feedback is based on the idea that you are supposed to be able to play any edition of D&D in D&D Next. The feedback is based explicitely on that. If D&D Next were to have a different stated design goal/philosophy (e.g. "Back to the Dungeon") my comments would not be relevant.
I have heard this said a lot and just do not believe it. Could it possibly be they are downplaying their innovations from 4E so as not to offend the large anti-4E customers they are trying to get back?
I think trying to downplay 4E is a lot more likely than saying 2 The designers do not know 4E"
If so they are going a remarkably stupid way about things. The Monte Cook "Passive Perception" issue was bad enough. But when Tom LaPille was actively deceptive about the way 4e worked that was stupid. If he hadn't mentioned the 4e Action Economy or had just talked about the removal of minor actions as a change from 4e I don't think anyone would have cared. But the "doesn't understand 4e" is the polite interpretation. (The impolite one is "actively and intentionally deceptive about 4e, deliberately annoying 4e fans").
Balance only really matters if you view the game in purely tactical terms.
...
The point when you say that no one character should dominate a scene relates solely to the notion that every scene is essentially a combat one, and that players cannot contribute unless their characters have powers.
False on both counts. Every scene needs a source of tension. But "Sit on the fighter's head - he's a fighter and therefore shouldn't be allowed to talk" is an issue. (See, for instance, the Decker problem I outlined)
I refute this suggestion, as there are more things a character can do beyond special effects, and the more you define characters by powers, the less able players are of playing the game any other way.
And I not only call your suggestion false, I call it actively insulting.
This is simply not true. So, yes, a Cleric who worships the God of War can, for one hour, become about as good as a Fighter in damage output. Not in accuracy, just damage, and he does so by using a once-per-day ability. And uses another once-per-day ability in order to have as much HP as the Fighter.
The problem here isn't that the Fighter isn't the best at Fighting, it's that for some reason, people love ignoring the fact that (in any normal game) there will be more than one fight in a day.
You know how many fights the Warpriest in the Caves of Chaos got through with one casting of Spiritual Hammer? Six.
Yes, you can almost match me in damage and health (but again, not accuracy, which is huge in a flat-math system) for an hour.
You are missing one unexplained point of to hit. You also have one unexplained point of AC extra. Even bigger for being on the battle line.
If you're playing a Fighter, you're doing so because the main thing you want to do is hit things.
Well you might be. I'm playing a fighter because I have a character concept in mind and fighter's the closest match.
And besides... how much "flexibility" does the 4e Fighter have? All of their powers equate to "Kill More Stuff" or "Be Hard to Kill", just like the Fighter from any other edition. How is this a new thing?
As for the Guardian theme... the Fighter in 4e has dozens (maybe even hundreds by now) of abilities that use the same type of action. Why is this somehow a bad thing? It's called opportunity cost.
Becuase the Fighter's interrupt attacks are notably good as the entire class is built with that in mind. The second Guardian feat stands in isolation.
There's also the fact that, again, you don't need abilities that specifically say "Give this bonus to your teammate" in order to use teamwork.
Of course you don't. They just encourage it.
And if you don't work together? You'll be less effective. That's the way it works, and trying to enforce teamwork is artificial and boring.
Strawman. You can't enforce teamwork.
Okay, right... repeat after me: "Play. Test." Do you really expect a full complement of options and abilities in a very early Alpha playtest. Of course not.
Not for design. A skeleton, yes.
However, there have been very specific talks about what's to come; like special combat maneuvers for the Fighter, different abilities for the Rogue. It was states long ago that the designers specifically chose to use the low-option, simple version of the Fighter.
It was. And, if you didn't notice, there was a recent article on maneuvers.
Y'know, for the people that like playing simple characters (which you can't really do easily in 4e).
You're years out of date. See the Slayer for details.
Also, remember that this is level one. Level one characters in 4e are reduced to spamming their at-wills just as much, and it gets just as boring.
Did you follow the linked At Will skirmish? You at least can have two distinctly different options.
And you wanna talk about inflated hit points?
I'm not sure I did that per se? Context matters.
Have... have you actually played the playtest? "Ease of play" is the thing that people are shouting their praise for all over the internet.
Both played and DM'd. And speed of play is not the same as ease of play. It's the speed that's been praised, and it is faster. I stated specific reasons why ease wasn't so good. And why ease works in 4e - notably I have literally never needed to look something up that wasn't setting specific in over a year.
Oh, and for your "terrain" and no forced movement... do your players never improvise? You don't have to look at a character sheet to know that a normal person can try to push another person around.
Of course they do! However a push means you aren't attacking. It's also a glaring case of "Mother, May I?" And is literally something I tried in the playtest (pushing rats into the pit) and got no benefit out of.
In addition to that, the fact that just about every 4e enemy has a list of special abilities to keep track of is horrible.
I've seldom had trouble *shrug*
How many ways are there to easily prevent 4e monsters from using their powers? I'll give you a hint; not many.
Once more I have to ask "Did you even read my post?" And "do you play 4e?" To stop the kobold skirmishers, knock them down or pin them in place with defender abilities. Melee the artillery. Immobilise or slow and kite the Brutes. Mark, mark, and Defender Aura anything. There are plenty of ways.
Most skirmishers are built around the principle "Do low damage unless they have combat advantage when they do high damage". So stop them flanking. Artillery is based around the principle "Do high damage at range and low in melee". Modern lurkers are based round the "Attack and be vulnerable every other turn" principle. Brutes are "High damage in melee, none or low at range".
and you have already made up your mind to hate anything that's different from 4e.
Less of the Ad Hominem please. I run WHFRP. I'm looking seriously at 13th Age right now as a step beyond 4e. D&D next has stated design criteria.
Would you like me to recount the number of times (out of combat) where my character has been completely useless because I didn't have the required skills? I'm quite serious about this. I don't recall a single skill challenge that wasn't a total bore-fest for me. Why? because inevitably the skills required to complete the challenge aren't on my list of trained skills.
So find a way to use your trained skills by engaging with the fiction. Skill challenges are, I'll admit, very badly presented and often badly run. And how on earth do you know they can only be used once in the challenge in advance?
This is why I haven't gone into detail about them.
See my previous point. Often 'what you're best at' is not applicable in a skill challenge. "Mental genius with a flair for knowledge? no use here buddy, we need endurance and athletics to chase the baddies across the rooftops."
Streetwise and history to work out a shortcut.
"Dextrous athlete? Sorry, this is a social skill challenge, go play in the corner."
You mean you took no social skills? That's a choice.
Ah, another pet peeve. Got a move that pushes your opponent? Cool, is there anything to push him into this battle? No?[/qupte]
Then I'm not DMingSee my notes on encounter design on the fly.
So... push him anyway. Yeah, that makes sense. And seriously, what happened to open battlefields, large chambers and other normal every day places that don't involve pits, lava, patches of ice etc?
How about stairs, roads, hills, bric-a-brack on the floor, kerbs and train tracks, roads (especially with open sewers the way medaeval towns had)? Looking round my flat I can see two stairs, one road, a cooker (not on but a hearth would be), a pile of things that would work as caltrops that need cleaning up (ahem!). You must fight in some very boring areas.
(Actually, that's a key point of difference between playgroups. It sounds to me like you're firmly in the camp of 'mechanics must provide the fun')
I'm firmly in the camp of "Everything should provide the fun".
Because 4E isn't tedious and grindy? What?? Escalated hit points? Compared with what? 4E? Are you serious?
The ogre and the leaders, yes the hit points are escalated. And the sheer number of orcs involved is ... impressive. But you're right, that was a bad way of putting things and I should edit.
2) Having these features present in such quantity (as much as every room in published adventures...) contributes to my broken verisimilitude.
I'm not defending the WoTC published adventures.
You certainly did a good job of describing 4E, but your impressions of where 5E is going, and your feelings as to which direction is the right direction... well that's where we disagree.
My feeling as to where 5e is going is round in circles. I wouldn't mind so much if it had a vision but the claimed vision is that you can play any edition in 5e.