D&D 5E L&L 3/11/2013 This Week in D&D
- Thread starter Blackwarder
- Start date
Personally I think that Mike's recent columns are pretty bland, he is probably working on stuff he is not ready to talk about.
I am a 4e fan but I really like Next and I am particularly interested in the idea of a very simple basic game. I also see a lot of 4e in the current game, the bounded accuracy is in effect similar to the scaling accuracy of 4e. This kind of thing makes encounter design simpler for the DM.
I would like to see some more playtest material, some hints as to how multi-classing will really work, and some hints as to the future of DDI. I expect we will see more shortly but I see little point at frothing at the mouth about being abandoned as customers or that nonsense. Either Next will be a game i buy or i won't but that is a decision for the future.
I am a 4e fan but I really like Next and I am particularly interested in the idea of a very simple basic game. I also see a lot of 4e in the current game, the bounded accuracy is in effect similar to the scaling accuracy of 4e. This kind of thing makes encounter design simpler for the DM.
I would like to see some more playtest material, some hints as to how multi-classing will really work, and some hints as to the future of DDI. I expect we will see more shortly but I see little point at frothing at the mouth about being abandoned as customers or that nonsense. Either Next will be a game i buy or i won't but that is a decision for the future.
That's pretty much my view.
But it doesn't follow from the fact that someone is not being burned that D&Dnext is a game they will, or should, want to play.
DonAdam
Explorer
Like others here, I loved many of the 4e innovations except the power system, which inadvertently killed exploration-based play. Dungeon crawls become dungeon delves. The other things I disliked (feat bloat, frequent choices among too many options) were carried over from 3e.
I guess I'm still hopeful that they can keep or adapt the good 4e innovations, return us to a pre-4e power structure, and (with specialties, etc.) kill the splat bloat.
I guess I'm still hopeful that they can keep or adapt the good 4e innovations, return us to a pre-4e power structure, and (with specialties, etc.) kill the splat bloat.
And yet... much of what is in D&DN is directly because of things enjoyed in 4E.
Fighters have Maneuvers. Combat abilities they can use during fights that are more than just attack/damage. Directly a result of 4E exploits.
Hit dice? Directly a result of 4E healing surges.
At-will spells? Directly a result of 4E casting.
But of course... we also have a lot of 4Eisms that we need to remember just haven't been created YET... not that they aren't going to be in AT ALL. Like all the tactical miniatures gridded play? Not yet implemented (but pretty easy to see how it can and will be).
The reason why 4E players have not seen "their game" yet is quite simple-- "their game" ISN'T. Isn't simple. At all. It's the most tactically complex combat system (with miniatures and grids and movement etc. etc.) that D&D had ever seen. So why the heck would any of you think any of that stuff would appear in the beginning / first half of the playtest? You've all been waiting for advanced modules to show up before the basic and standard modules have even been completed. That's just silly.
Why not take the reasonable approach and think to yourself that perhaps it might be... oh, I don't know... after all the races and classes get finished before you might start seeing some of the advanced modules start to show up for testing? Call me crazy... but wanting a playable replica of 4E before we've even got the stupid RANGER to playtest is kinda putting the cart before the horse, don'tcha think?
Vyvyan Basterd
Adventurer
I think the point he was trying to get at was similar to one discussed in the making of Magic cards. The modern gaming tendency is to make everything upside for the user. That's why their original fog cloud spell allowed the casters allies to see through the fog. By making every choice upside, you reduce tacical depth. There are more choices to be made when something your character does has both an upside and a downside. The other side effect he noted was that this added tactical depth (which I realize he at best alluded to) came with the added benefit of simplifying the spell. Now the fog cloud spell does exactly what one would expect, while cutting text related to the caster and his friends getting an exemption.
Kobold Avenger
Legend
One of the thing with spells in 3e and before and 4e, is that in 3e they had very openly-defined, somewhat vague in use but very versatile spells like Silent/Minor/Major Image, Shadow Conjuration and Polymorph, that could allow a player to do a lot of things if they thought it through. But in 4e spells were much more well defined and narrow in the parameters of what they could do.
There's certainly advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. Though with the statement that they can afford to make spells more specialized, I'm not quite sure if it means there going to have less of those broadly defined spells or not.
There's certainly advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. Though with the statement that they can afford to make spells more specialized, I'm not quite sure if it means there going to have less of those broadly defined spells or not.
innerdude
Legend
This is a very salient point, DEFCON, at least as far as the playtest itself is concerned.
I think there's two parallel conversations going on in the thread at the moment: 1) what, exactly, should Mearls be trying to communicate in his L&L articles about the design process of 5e, and 2) how much of what he actually is communicating has relevance to the current state of the 5e rules? To be honest, I think Mike would do well to address those questions at some point as plainly as he can. It would help us, his prospective customers, to feel a greater sense of engagement. My post earlier in this thread was merely commenting on why his articles have been getting criticism. It had no bearing on what's in the current playtest, other than to express skepticism about just how much of Mearl's comments can be applied to 5e gameplay. I followed much of the 4e pre-release commentary, and most of it ended up being "cheerleading" for the changes ("It's great! You'll like it! We've fixed sooooo many of your problems with this!").
I haven't even looked at a playtest packet since the October one, since I realized that my group had no interest in playtesting at that point, and I had no interest in trying to parse through the rules updates until I had a more coherent vision of the whole. In the vein of DEFCON's comment, I'd like to see a playtest with the "BIG 8" classes all in the same place (Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, Barbarian, Ranger, Bard, Monk OR Paladin) before really making any "definitive" (as definitive as can be with an "alpha" product) conclusions about the direction of 5e.
Which he does, in the Google Hangouts that he, Trevor and Jeremy have done. With like a 90 minute conversation, the listen gets a much more intuitive, comprehensive, and comprehensible idea of not only what they are doing / leaning towards... but also just how tuned in they are to ALL of the criticisms people are making to the product.
The fact that the last(?) one they did specifically called out the "rogue using a sling to take out a dragon" issue that was all the rage to talk (and for many complain) about here on EN World several months ago as something they knew was not supposed to result... is quite the indication that they actually know what the score is and know what people's problems with things are.
So all the 4Ers who keep thinking that Mike et. al. are deliberately ignoring all that 4E brought to the table to the D&D game and are maliciously thumbing their nose at all of you... I don't think you have really been paying attention to how this entire process has gone so far. Plus how on the mark they are as to what they are doing and how they are parsing out the design and information to make sure each phase goes the way they should.
Which is why I do think many folks would be better served not looking at individual play packets and instead maybe just check in every six months. Because when you spend so much time going over every packet with a fine-toothed comb NOT because you are actually playtesting the game at the table but rather because you are just unconsciously looking for ways to be bothered with what is being done... you're missing the forest for the trees.
Similar Threads
