Steely_Dan
First Post
I think the words "Awesome" and "Cool" should be banned from these boards for a while.
Screw Nostalgia
- Thread starter Glade Riven
- Start date
Steely_Dan
First Post
Sorry, I don't believe you, nothing personal, I just really don't (from mass experience), I would have to be there.
The Shadow
Hero
I'm not sure if 'nostalgia' is quite the right word. I'm not looking to get back the feeling I had as an 11 year old playing Keep on the Borderlands. I get much richer, deeper gaming experiences as an adult.
'Tradition' is a bit closer, but still not quite. I played earlier editions and had a lot of fun with them, but I realized at the time that there were plenty of clunky mechanics that got in the way of having even more fun - and I would gladly see them go. And there's some "D&D lore" that I would cheerfully see flushed down the memory hole. (Great Wheel, I'm looking at you. I've loathed that thing since I first saw it in the 1e DMG. It's just so... clumsy.)
Maybe 'ambience' is right. When I play 5e, I want it to feel like I'm playing D&D. I've played plenty of other games, and enjoyed them greatly, but they have their own distinctive feel.
No offense to 4e fans, but 4e didn't clear that hurdle with me. My take on 4e is that it's an absolutely brilliant example of successful game design, a concerted attempt at producing exactly the game the designers wanted to make. It's just not a game I feel interested in playing. Again, no offense meant - it's a matter of taste. I don't like watching football, but I have no grudge against people who do.
I want 5e to play like D&D, but I want it to do it smoothly and with a minimum of fuss. (Unified mechanics are a huge deal in this area.) I want it to get out of the way as much as possible, and I want it to be practical to play combat without a map.
'Tradition' is a bit closer, but still not quite. I played earlier editions and had a lot of fun with them, but I realized at the time that there were plenty of clunky mechanics that got in the way of having even more fun - and I would gladly see them go. And there's some "D&D lore" that I would cheerfully see flushed down the memory hole. (Great Wheel, I'm looking at you. I've loathed that thing since I first saw it in the 1e DMG. It's just so... clumsy.)
Maybe 'ambience' is right. When I play 5e, I want it to feel like I'm playing D&D. I've played plenty of other games, and enjoyed them greatly, but they have their own distinctive feel.
No offense to 4e fans, but 4e didn't clear that hurdle with me. My take on 4e is that it's an absolutely brilliant example of successful game design, a concerted attempt at producing exactly the game the designers wanted to make. It's just not a game I feel interested in playing. Again, no offense meant - it's a matter of taste. I don't like watching football, but I have no grudge against people who do.
I want 5e to play like D&D, but I want it to do it smoothly and with a minimum of fuss. (Unified mechanics are a huge deal in this area.) I want it to get out of the way as much as possible, and I want it to be practical to play combat without a map.
Storminator
First Post
One of the tropes of our game is mocking message board posts about grind after every fight. We also mock the posts about no one dying unless it's a TPK.
I'm trying to convince my group that it's just because I'm an incredibly awesome DM, but it was like that under our last DM too.
And you're unlikely to be there, since there are no openings at our table (and at least 3 players on the "waiting list").
PS
Steely_Dan
First Post
One of the tropes of our game is mocking message board posts about grind after every fight. We also mock the posts about no one dying unless it's a TPK.
I'm trying to convince my group that it's just because I'm an incredibly awesome DM, but it was like that under our last DM too.
And you're unlikely to be there, since there are no openings at our table (and at least 3 players on the "waiting list").
PS
Mocking, always nice; sorry, ya lost me, what game are we talking about?
And who is "we"?
Neonchameleon
Legend
Let me start by saying that this resembles almost no game of 4e I have ever played. It does resemble what happens when a Batman wizard or other Scry + Fry merchant gets ahold of 3.X at mid-high level unless the DM bends over backwards to prevent this.
You've got that backwards. As a DM, I love minions. Minions allow me to use hordes of enemies. Sure, three or four minions aer nothing. But quantity has a quality all of its own. When I use minions, I use them by the dozen.
If I want to stage an orc invasion in 3.X and my PCs are 11th level, the rank and file orcs will be CR 1/2. And are likely to be only able to hit the PCs on a natural 20 - and that if the wizard hasn't put up something like Protection from Arrows to render that a moot point. Wizard using fly and protection from arrows literally can't be hurt by any of the orcs if he stays out of reach unless the orc manages a confirmed critical with his javelin (which will do an average of 3 points of damage). If I can pump the wizard's AC to 21, there is no chance of a confirmed crit. 1 wizard vs 100 non-minion orcs? AWESOME.
Minions used properly on the other hand are Awesome. I want to stage the same invasion against 11th level PCs in 4e rules. This time I use minion orcs and keep the xp value of an orc constant - so I raise the level of the orcs from 4 (in 4e) to 12 and then drop them to minons. Although they have one hit point this means they can take one hit rather than the two it would take to kill them under normal conditions in 4e. Because the orcs are minions of the right level instead of needing a ridiculous number to hit, they need about an 11. And do about 10 points of damage per hit. There's no protection from arrows spell in 4e. So if the wizard tries the gunship strategy (and in 4e the orcs outrange him), 100 orcs are going to throw javelins at the wizard. On average 50 are going to hit - for a total of 500 points of damage in one round. Wizard pincushion. Taking out an invading army of 100 minion orcs is Awesome.
(If I hadn't used minions, the orcs would be doing an average of 12 points of damage each but only hitting on a 19 with their javelins and the wizard would be hitting on 2s rather than 8s - the situation is a little better than it would have been in 3.5, but not a lot.)
The thing to remember about minions is that they have literally twice the damage output of their xp value of normal monsters. Minions are there so you can have certain Awesome threats (i.e. hordes) or certain minor threats (drudges or otherwise unskilled) and have them work as real although minor threats when working together rather than a joke that can effectively be ignored.
Neonchameleon
Legend
For the record we regularly have nailbiters at my table. And I've killed more PCs in one year of 4e than had happened under five of 3.X at the same table. The run-across-the-battlefield-to-pour-a-potion-of-healing-down-someone's-throat is pretty common.
Of course I often throw the encounter balance guides out of the window. But the very fact that 4e PCs are resilient means you can pound them hard without quite killing them (unless you coup de grace).
Storminator
First Post
My last battle ended with 4 PCs at negative hp, the cleric out of heal spells AND dazed. 2 PCs died. They were still biting their nails AFTER every enemy died.
I also throw out the guidelines. I have 7 PCs, which makes their synergies very, very strong. I typically start with 1 standard and 1 elite for each pair of PCs. I adjust from there.
PS
Imaro
Legend
Wait, soooo... a "challenging" encounter by the book, isn't really a challenge? And in order for these exciting near-death battles to be achieved you have to go against the supposed math (and how it balances out) of the encounter guidelines... so is the system a good measure for balancing encounters or not?
EDIT: And if not aren't we just back to guesstimation?