Legends & Lore: What Worked, What Didn't

[Majoru Oakheart]

And yet every time a supporter of this theory posts an actual example from his game it shows that not the complexity slows down the game but players who pay absolutely no attention.

Except, as I said in my last post, the same players who "pay absolutely no attention" suddenly are able to keep track of everything and battles go very fast now in 5e due to the lack of complexity.

So, then it must be the complexity and not the players who are the issue.

 

[Falling Icicle]

And yet every time a supporter of this theory posts an actual example from his game it shows that not the complexity slows down the game but players who pay absolutely no attention.

Isn't it possible that the complexity of the rules if the reason why those players don't pay attention?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I've ran the math and observed all sides of the issue. Its not Chicken-little-ing as you call it. Its just cold hard facts. The Wizard is more versatile and can keep up with the Fighter in every way possible with the exception of hp (and even that is mitigated by a high enough false life spell or stone skin spell in the right situations).

Sweet, you've got an early copy of the actual rules! How do you like the artwork? I've been pretty excited by what I've seen on the site. What's the pagecount? Is the production quality of the books solid?

Unless all you've seen is the same playstest doc that everyone else has seen and that actually says very little about what the actual published rules are going to look like?

 

[Evenglare]

Unless all you've seen is the same playstest doc that everyone else has seen and that actually says very little about what the actual published rules are going to look like?

What was the point of the play test if the final rules will look nothing like what we played?

 

[MerricB]

What was the point of the play test if the final rules will look nothing like what we played?

"Nothing" is definitely going too far. What you playtested and the final system will likely be very recognisable. The playtest was mainly assessing which Playstyle the rules support. The major difference between the playtested rules and what we see in the final product is how tight the mathematics of the system are.

We'll also see a lot more options coming through, which should allow the fighter to be more than just the basic idea, if your group wants him that way.

 

[Lokiare]

Sweet, you've got an early copy of the actual rules! How do you like the artwork? I've been pretty excited by what I've seen on the site. What's the pagecount? Is the production quality of the books solid?

Unless all you've seen is the same playstest doc that everyone else has seen and that actually says very little about what the actual published rules are going to look like?

I've seen what they've presented so far and their articles on design and not once do they acknowledge the problem. It would be foolhardy to assume they will change something with no evidence.

 

[Primal]

To be fair, they still can. The difference between the weapons are negligible as it is. They are just different enough to have a slight flavor difference between them. Which I'm perfectly happy with. It worked well in 2e.

It would take any sense of flavor the rules currently have and thrown them out the window. I like the idea that weapons are slightly different and only become more different if you take feats or get class features to differentiate them.

Honestly, there's nothing of Skills and Powers in 5e. There aren't 12 stats, you can't use a point buy system to acquire class features from other classes, you can't take disadvantages to get more points. That's pretty much the entirety of what Skills and Powers added.

Instead, 5E is like core 2e D&D only with ACs going up instead of down, the classes more balanced against each other, feats added, and skills.

It's the 3e I would have preferred to see come out in 2000.

I guess our tastes are just different, which is completely fine. By the end of the 90s we had already house-ruled AD&D so much that it was another game altogether. And yet we were getting tired of all the inconsistent and disparate mechanics (percentile rolls for system shock and thief skills, d10 initiative, XP tables, etc.). 3E felt like a breeze of fresh air to us, and it took a year or two to discover its flaws. However, I still vastly prefer 3.0 over AD&D any day.

I prefer weapons to be balanced against each other, and yet to feel mechanically different. IMO it didn't feel that way in AD&D; the only factor in addition to damage dice and type was the optional weapon speed. Yet honestly, who in their right mind would prefer a morningstar or battleaxe over longsword? Or specialize in a polearm, when a greatsword does 3d6 vs. large creatures? You only did it because of flavor reasons, but it was hardly balanced. If your group *did* use weapon speed -- and not everyone did -- daggers and short swords *were* usually better against spellcasters, because you had a chance to act faster and automatically disrupt their spells. But other than that, it didn't feel to me like there were any mechanical reasons to favor aforementioned weapons over their more popular counterparts. If 5E does this via feats, it still doesn't affect newbie players' choices, right? Because it takes a couple of levels to get your first feat, and that's assuming they even use and know of those weapon-augmenting feats. And if you ask me, "unlocking" all the good stuff with just one feat is neither elegant nor good design.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Oh good, we are returning to actual things mentioned in the OP.

Agree on your final points regarding weapon qualities [MENTION=30678]Primal[/MENTION]. Some games have done this very well and then feats/whatever can unlock more weapon qualities or build on those that are there. But I too think it is important to give weapons something to make them interesting and different from one another.

Casters can blast different effects each round, but more than that, it is just more interesting for the weapon wielders. If your PC is wielding a favoured weapon (and I don't think many players would actually have their PC swap weapons regularly) I don't think many players would forget its major properties.

Anyway, I would love to see weapon qualities like SIFRP.

 

[SkidAce]

Sweet, you've got an early copy of the actual rules! How do you like the artwork? I've been pretty excited by what I've seen on the site. What's the pagecount? Is the production quality of the books solid?

Unless all you've seen is the same playstest doc that everyone else has seen and that actually says very little about what the actual published rules are going to look like?

I wouldn't go that far, we draw conclusions from what rules packets we have seen.

Not set in granite perhaps, more like a little brick and mortar.

 

[Cybit]

I've ran the math and observed all sides of the issue. Its not Chicken-little-ing as you call it. Its just cold hard facts. The Wizard is more versatile and can keep up with the Fighter in every way possible with the exception of hp (and even that is mitigated by a high enough false life spell or stone skin spell in the right situations).

FWIW, as someone who has access to more...recent documents, I would not worry about this. Assuming they keep down this route, they actually did solve some of the biggest discussions that these boards have had, including one that recently re-surfaced.