D&D 5E You can't necessarily go back

[Obryn]

I don't know about anyone else here but I can tell you that my group and I enjoy games the most where we aren't the center of the universe and our story comes to fruition after the game is over, not before it begins.

Our stories take shape from the decisions the characters make and the way the dice rolls, it all becomes a page in the big book of our adventure. Our DM usually creates a massive world and he let's us choose where we want to go and he will have a different scenario set up for each section. Let's say for instance we decide to go and visit the dwarves. Well we will get there only to find out that they are being attacked by frost giants and they need our help. There realm may be in danger but not the entire planet or even the whole continent for that matter.

Sometimes we will play in games that have a central plot and we get around to it when we are ready and there is no time clock ticking away.

Also, we don't write out what magic items we want ahead of time because we all enjoy the surprise of finding random items and the challenge comes from finding uses for those items even though they may not synergize with your character optimally.

This is the kind of system I hope Next gives us. We want to be able to play anywhere from fresh off the farm to born with a certain destiny or a combination of both.

Funny thing is, that's exactly how my 4e Dark Sun game works. Now with that said, at 15th level, they're among the movers & shakers, but they weren't always.

This is not a matter of edition or even really of rule-set.

-O

 

[slobster]

But, anyone who really does believe all that could reasonably content himself with just positive assertions about what he wants included, and refrain from negative ones since exclusion of 'bad' or 'wrong' elements from the game is nonsensical when bad and wrong are subjective.

But giving the designers feedback on what you personally and subjectively find to be bad or wrong is exactly the kind of feedback they want. Keep that stuff to yourself, and the designers will never hear your opinion, and will instead listen to what everyone else complains about.

Hopefully you end up in the majority, and the designers serve up a game that you want to play. But telling them your frank opinions can only help you get there (though as with all criticism, being civil and tolerant of contradicting views is important).

 

[Ahnehnois]

This is not a matter of edition or even really of rule-set.

Well, then again neither is balance.

Pretty much any issue with the rules can be patched, ignored, or otherwise rectified on an individual basis. Any style of game can be achieved without any rules, and thus with any rules. We just post because we think some rules make our lives easier than others.

 

[Obryn]

Well, then again neither is balance.

Pretty much any issue with the rules can be patched, ignored, or otherwise rectified on an individual basis. Any style of game can be achieved without any rules, and thus with any rules. We just post because we think some rules make our lives easier than others.

I disagree; balance is very much a matter of rule-set.

As for the rest... I'm not talking at all about houserules or patches. Are you implying that I'm not running my 4e game by the actual rules to play the style of game I'm running? 4e by the book handles the sort of playstyle ForeverSlayer was serenading just fine.

-O

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I disagree; balance is very much a matter of rule-set.

As for the rest... I'm not talking at all about houserules or patches. Are you implying that I'm not running my 4e game by the actual rules to play the style of game I'm running? 4e by the book handles the sort of playstyle ForeverSlayer was serenading just fine.

-O

Mmmmm yes and no.

Magic items are built into the system much more than in any other edition so I find this to be a problem. Yes I know there are inherent bonuses that you can give out but it feels too "tacked" on.

PC's start out higher in power than usual so the "straight off the farm" style doesn't really work well unless your campaign happens in "super hero" world where even the lowest commoner has some power.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't know about anyone else here but I can tell you that my group and I enjoy games the most where we aren't the center of the universe and our story comes to fruition after the game is over, not before it begins.

[...]

Also, we don't write out what magic items we want ahead of time because we all enjoy the surprise of finding random items and the challenge comes from finding uses for those items even though they may not synergize with your character optimally.

This is the kind of system I hope Next gives us. We want to be able to play anywhere from fresh off the farm to born with a certain destiny or a combination of both.

...must spread experience...blah blah blah...blech...

Can someone chuck an XP Slayer's way here for me...this post is pure edition-neutral brilliance!

Lanefan

 

[Obryn]

Mmmmm yes and no.

Magic items are built into the system much more than in any other edition so I find this to be a problem. Yes I know there are inherent bonuses that you can give out but it feels too "tacked" on.

PC's start out higher in power than usual so the "straight off the farm" style doesn't really work well unless your campaign happens in "super hero" world where even the lowest commoner has some power.

Inherent bonuses are pretty great, and the assumption in Dark Sun (which I'm running). It's fine you think they feel tacked-on, but they help make for a great campaign style, freer from magic items than 3.x (or 1e for that matter) ever was.

Compared to their opposition, PCs are just as powerful as before. We had a few character deaths and numerous near-deaths at lower levels. So I also am just not seeing "superhero farmboys" here unless superheroes regularly die to slavers and elves.

It's fine you don't like the system, but it's pretty baffling you're trying to argue that you know my campaign better than I do.

-O

 

[ForeverSlayer]

It's fine you don't like the system, but it's pretty baffling you're trying to argue that you know my campaign better than I do.

-O

How about point out where I did this?

 

[Obryn]

How about point out where I did this?

I disagree; balance is very much a matter of rule-set.

As for the rest... I'm not talking at all about houserules or patches. Are you implying that I'm not running my 4e game by the actual rules to play the style of game I'm running? 4e by the book handles the sort of playstyle ForeverSlayer was serenading just fine.

Mmmmm yes and no.

Magic items are built into the system much more than in any other edition so I find this to be a problem. Yes I know there are inherent bonuses that you can give out but it feels too "tacked" on.

PC's start out higher in power than usual so the "straight off the farm" style doesn't really work well unless your campaign happens in "super hero" world where even the lowest commoner has some power.

Since the last two paragraphs weren't in reference to the balance issue, what exactly were you replying to, if not the style of my campaign and how well the 4e rule set works for it?

-O

 

[Tony Vargas]

Magic items are built into the system much more than in any other edition so I find this to be a problem. Yes I know there are inherent bonuses that you can give out but it feels too "tacked" on.

Inherent bonuses eliminate the mathematical side of item-dependency completely. I'm sorry if they feel 'tacked on' to you, but that doesn't make them irrelevant to the point you make. They still make removing item dependence /very/ easy.

But that's really just the tip of the iceberg. Classic D&D depended on magic items to keep the classes balanced - magic item tables were weighted to drop the magic weapons & armor needed by non-casters much more than the wands/staves/rods that casters coveted, in an attempt to keep casters from dominating. I don't think it was very effective, but it was intended to be magic-item dependent. Similarly, in 3e and earlier, non-casters depended on magic items to keep up with casters who could start flying, turning invisible, teleporting and so forth. In 4e, more disruptive abilities like that are pushed out to Paragon level and has balanced classes, so has much less magic-item dependence.

Indeed, the most nearly valid complaint you could make about 4e magic items is the exact opposite: that they have too /little/ impact to be 'interesting' to jaded D&Ders accustomed to much more powerful and character 'defining' magic-items.

PC's start out higher in power than usual so the "straight off the farm" style doesn't really work well unless your campaign happens in "super hero" world where even the lowest commoner has some power.

Each edition has has a little inflation in terms of 1st-level hps and bonuses. I don't think it's insurmountable, for the 'off the farm' style of play, it's only really an issue if you want to regularly kill low-level PCs (if you want off-the-farm Luke Skywalker to die in his first encounter with stormtroopers). The notorious /old/ old-school style where you don't even bother naming your character until 5th level. While I'm not trying to prove that is style badwrongfun (I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader), lowering first level hps is not exactly rocket science - the worst that could happen is that your PCs die a lot as a result, and /that's what you're going for./