Results 151 to 180 of 1137
-
2012-01-10, 01:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition makes the New York Times
-
2012-01-10, 01:23 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition makes the New York Times
-
2012-01-10, 01:32 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- NYC, NY
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition makes the New York Times
It's been going on since 2nd edition. The only thing to do at this point is laugh and play games.
-
2012-01-10, 01:51 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- UTC -6
Re: D&D 5th Edition makes the New York Times
-
2012-01-10, 02:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
Re: [3.5/PF/4.0] 5.0 in the News
If the differences are small then yes, it won't be noticeable, unless they're the kind of knowledgeable guys that can reverse engineer monster stats in 2-3 rounds, but if it's constantly 2x PC HP, 50% of PC damage like in 4E, then it's going to be noticeable pretty soon.
Some ppl prefer ease of use vs internal consistency, and there's nothing bad with that. I personally prefer the feeling that the dudes I'm fighting are 'people like me' and not something else. Not saying they should be built by 100% the same rules but they shouldn't be noticeably different.
-
2012-01-10, 02:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Gender
Re: [3.5/PF/4.0] 5.0 in the News
Yes, 4e had a problem with combats dragging too much due to HP bloat and low damage, especially at later levels. I'm not saying that extreme differentiation is good. I just vehemently disagree that a full PC writeup should be used for every NPC, and that every monster should be created with the idea of it being playable by a PC in mind.
Also, there would need to be an exception for elites/minions. I don't think Solos were good for the game, as even they wound up needing some extra minion support. But Elites that are tougher than your average PC in terms of defenses/action economy, while not dealing damage as if it were several levels higher I think are good. Similarly, minions that can meaningfully affect PCs, but die quickly are good. You could maybe make it so elites are only monsters that aren't available to PCs (things like Beholders, Dragons, etc), but personally I see nothing wrong with an Elite Elf Necromancer NPC, since the alternative is throwing significantly higher level NPCs at the party at which point it becomes much harder to balance.If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?
-
2012-01-10, 02:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- Mountain View, CA
- Gender
Re: [3.5/PF/4.0] 5.0 in the News
I'm ok with monster/NPC rules that take the PC rules and cross out sections for being irrelevant to the monster's likely in game role, but there should be guidelines for filling in those sections if they become relevant and they should function the same way. If I know only the PC rules, my reaction to seeing an NPC stat block should be either "nice character" or "where's the rest of it?", not "that doesn't fit the rules."
NPC rules that say "technically an NPC should have everything a PC does, but only these portions of it are likely to matter" are fine. NPC rules that give them materially different mechanics just because they are NPCs break verisimilitude.
What's most important to me is that taking the rules at face value as representing how things actually work in the game world should make sense. PCs having different rules because they are PCs doesn't work with that. NPCs having simplified rules for DMing convenience can be compatible with that, but only if the simplification is restricted to omitting details that aren't relevant with an explicit note that the omission is strictly a bookkeeping convenience, not an actual reduction in capabilities.Like 4X (aka Civilization-like) gaming? Know programming? Interested in game development? Take a look.
Avatar by Ceika.
Archives:
SpoilerSaberhagen's Twelve Swords, some homebrew artifacts for 3.5 (please comment)
Isstinen Tonche for ECL 74 playtesting.
Team Solars: Powergaming beyond your wildest imagining, without infinite loops or epic. Yes, the DM asked for it.
Arcane Swordsage: Making it actually work (homebrew)
-
2012-01-10, 02:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Lustria
- Gender
Re: [3.5/PF/4.0] 5.0 in the News
I believe this may be of some interest...
(meh... already linked by Matthew in the 5e thread, but anyway)Last edited by Killer Angel; 2012-01-10 at 02:48 AM. Reason: white text
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes. (W.Whitman)
Things that increase my self esteem:
-
2012-01-10, 02:58 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
Re: [3.5/PF/4.0] 5.0 in the News
I might not have made my thought very clear: I don't want every enemy to be 100% like a PC, but I want them to feel enough like a PC so it doesn't leave the impression that the world works with 2 completely different sets of rules, one for PCs and one for everybody else. I'd like a game where PCs are part of the world and not outsiders.
That I disagree with. I mean it's all right if monsters not accessible to PCs have disproportionately high offense (minions) or disproportionately high defenses (elites). It makes sense in the game world to say these monsters are just like that(although a rules justification, like for example making dragon HD have 1d20 and poor BAB in 3.5, would be nice). However, I can't get behind doing the same thing with stuff that's accessible to PCs, like that Elf(presumably a playable race) Necromancer (presumably wizard, a playable class). How can you explain via in-game logic that a PC can't get similar abilities?Last edited by LordBlades; 2012-01-10 at 03:03 AM.
-
2012-01-10, 03:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Gender
Re: [3.5/PF/4.0] 5.0 in the News
If you have something on your character sheet that is a purely passive numerical bonus, you are likely to forget it is there, and certainly you'll feel gimped compared to players who actually have stuff to do besides, you know, hit him real hard. Take the "+2/+2 skill feats" for example. In RAW, they are deathly dull. In my houserules, they increase the bonus from a spent action point to xd10 (from xd6) on the relevant skill, and allow a re-roll once a day. Th player actually has a reason to consciously remember he has the feat.
3) Coming up with dozens or hundreds of unique non-passive abilities that aren't keyed to a specific class or archtype is ridiculously hard. Just try to come up with a list, see how far you get.
Weapon Focus: You roll d10s when you spent action points with an attack roll using the weapon, and you can re-roll 1/day (maybe more considering attacks get used more often than skills).
See? Easy.
-
2012-01-10, 03:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Location
- Idaho
- Gender
Re: [3.5/PF/4.0] 5.0 in the News
I love this part! We all get to wish the impossible...a perfect role playing game. Here is what I would like to see (albeit in rough terms):
1. The apparent flexibility of 4th edition style classes ("apparent" because higher level powers often replicated lower level ones) mashed up with the interesting paths that Pathfinder archetypes provide. Basically, more diverse, interesting alternate class features that can be combined in creative ways.
2. The difference in scale from low to high level found in 3.0/3.5/pfrpg married to a nuance task resolution system such as the system for combat and skills found in the current version of Warhammer Fantasy. D&D scales from meek to mighty to something just short of divine but never gets beyond a simple succeed fail metric. Warhammer Fantasy has less of an epic progression for characters but has a clever way of resolving actions that does not ensure only success or failure. In other words, I want the possibility of epic play and yet I want game mechanics that make both players and dungeon masters better story tellers. If you haven't seen what they tried to do with task/skill resolution, you should check it out. It opens up many possibilities.
3. Huge nod to 4th ed: keep the "second wind" concept and some form of universal healing out of combat! I HATE wands of Cure Light Wounds and the bizarre magic item economy that they represent.
-
2012-01-10, 04:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
Re: [3.5/PF/4.0] 5.0 in the News
The lesson from 4th edition is that it is possible to create a well balanced (note I didn't say perfectly balanced) game based on the D&D framework.
I hope they boot exponential growth for a subset of classes to the curb permanently.
I also like the idea of a combat that lasts longer than 1 round, and fewer save or die/suck so bad you wish you were dead. Because they turn the game into a coin toss. Heads you win, tails you lose.
-
2012-01-10, 06:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: 5th Edition hopes?
No, Cook seems to be the holy child who is going to fix everything.
We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.
Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying
-
2012-01-10, 06:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: 5th Edition hopes?
We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.
Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying
-
2012-01-10, 06:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Gender
-
2012-01-10, 06:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: D&D 5th Edition makes the New York Times
Probably not. Except when you want to say that you do not believe in the existance of editions, but they might still exist anyway.
We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.
Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying
-
2012-01-10, 07:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: 5th Edition hopes?
Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.
"I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!
-
2012-01-10, 07:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: 5th Edition hopes?
Not that 3rd Edition was any better.
I think even Pathfinder has about 20 base classes now.We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.
Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying
-
2012-01-10, 07:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
Re: 5th Edition hopes?
Stuff I'd like to see in 5E
- Altered Skills: the 3.5 Skill System felt like a point-based System like Gurps attached to the core mechanic. That's not a bad thing, but they should extend the use of the skills. Make them useful in combat, give extraordinary advantages. Maybe even incorporate the combat system into the skill system. Why can I hit harder/more accurate automatically by leveling up, but my skills have to be bought by points?
They changed that with 4E, but the skill system in 4E always felt lacking to me. It didn't allow for diversification and in my opinion the skill list itself is lacking.
- Multiclassing: This is a tricky one. On the one Hand I like 3.X multiclassing, but on the other Hand it it a mess. You couldn't properly multiclass as a Caster without nerfing yourself into oblivion, but on the other Hand these Frontloaded Classes like a Paladin had no intention not to multiclass. Prestige Classes were a good idea initially, but it led to Prestige Class Hopping where people were just collecting class features.
Legend's multiclassing is a nice idea, similar to what I had homebrew some time ago. Maybe expand on Alternative Class features and go from there?
- Saving throws: I really like the defense mechanics from 4E. I think they were a good idea
- Classes: Please no generic classes! The fighter is in my opinion not a class, but a role in combat. It is the guy that swings a sword, but nothing more. On the other hand we got the Paladin, the Ranger or even the Rogue, where we have a clue what they do out of combat. Their class defines their combat style, not the other way round.
Again, maybe something like the AD&D2E Kits: Define a base mechanic (warrior, wizard, priest, thief, psionicist, etc) and build classes on top of that. There should be a mechanical difference between these classes. They don't need to be absolutely balanced against each other. Let them handle it differently, or maybe let them even be incapable to do something specific.
- Optional Rules: Make the System modular! For easy play use the basic rules, but for a more realistic/gritty/complex/balanced play use optional rules.
- Bring back vancian casting: Many, many players dislike that one. But let's face it: It is easy to understand and easy to play. It adds complexity that some (many? At least I do!) enjoy. It screams DnD to me like nothing else.
-
2012-01-10, 07:31 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
Re: [3.5/PF/4.0] 5.0 in the News
I felt that 4E showed us that balance is a mixed blessing. Class, most often more so than race, is the one choice that defines a character. If all classes have the similar basic mechanics, the game feels
I'd prefer 5E to to take a step back from 4E's direction and start where 3.5 and PF have stopped. I'd love to see martial adepts similar to those in Tome of Battle, but I'd prefer to have them as additional classes, while keeping a fighter (etc.) with fairly simple mechanics, also to get new players involved. Regarding classes and prestige classes, I'd welcome a return to 3.5's complexity. I think one of the reasons so many people still use 3.5 material is the sheer number of options it provides. Some complexity of 3.5 and PF, especially regarding combat maneuvers, such as grappling, tripping, etc., should be simplified, IMO.Red Hand of Doom Rise of the Runelords
Fiendlord Base Class (WIP, PEACH) Elementalist Base Class (WIP, PEACH)
Awesome Ulitharid avatar by the gifted Ceika. Thank you!
-
2012-01-10, 07:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: [3.5/PF/4.0] 5.0 in the News
What I really don't want to see return is the basic "High/Medium/Low BAB - Good/Bad Saves" chart. I think that one is my primary problem with d20 games in general. When a Level 20 character laughs at a level 15 character who can not harm him, who laughs at a level 10 character who can not harm him, who laughs at a level 5 character who can not harm him, who laughs at the 1st level NPCs who can not harm him, then I think there is something wrong.
With overwhelming numbers and good tactics, and character or creature should be able to take down any other character or creature. Maybe with only a slim chance and massive losses, but no character or NPC should ever be completely invulnerable to anything but a small segment of Levels and CRs.
I want to be able to run a campaign from 1st level to 10th while all the time fighting, among other thing, basic goblins. Early on, the PCs can deal only with 5 and are in great danger, and later on they can manage 8 battles against 12 goblins each before being in danger of being overwhelmed. But I don't want one type of enemy become redundant by the time I become able to face another type of enemy.
I want to be able to switch between giants and goblins back and forth, without need to level up monsters myself.We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.
Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying
-
2012-01-10, 07:56 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Durham
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition makes the New York Times
Editions...
Editions...
We see them come and go.
And though we may fight about them we all see the good inside them
From 1st to 4th
We can accept each others place
Your playstyle is not invalidated
With the new edition on the horizon
So we go forth into a new edition
Will it bring us joy or tears?
It is are own inclination
That brings down this new-metrication!
And so off we go
And lights shine from the stars joyous laughter from afar
So we don't bid adieu
But rather invite into a new star!
~
Done
Ok just wrote that right now. Just a reminder to all of us it doesn't matter because it means merely new friends to the fold. And we should look at it and then decide where we wish to go. Maybe to stay with that which is enjoyed or expand upon horizons and open the veil to new sensations
-
2012-01-10, 07:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Location
- North Carolina, USA
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition makes the New York Times
Color me excited. When 4e came out, I swore up and down that I would keep playing 3.5. Boy was that wrong. Eventually 4e's merits proved too much for 3.5 to ever be able to compete with and I dropped it like it was a hissing snake. I kept my old 3.5 books only so that one day I could show it to my kids and run them through a couple of games.
So this time? I'm being a bit more optimistic. I'm hoping that 5e does the same thing to 4e that 4e did to 3.5. It's so good, so revolutionary that I can't stand to play 4e any more and must convert to 5e.
Don't get me wrong: I can think of ways to improve on 4e. Some inherent design flaws that they could fix. That would end up being more of a 4.5, though, and not a completely new edition. (Although the differences would be far greater than 3 to 3.5.)
I'll actually give feedback if I'm able. I realize they probably won't read it. But for the slim chance they do? I want to be able to help. Perhaps I can give a bit of insight that they can build on to make the game truly great. If thousands of people give their ideas, one of those ideas is sure to be great. I just hope that people don't bombard them with "3.5/4e is so great that you should reprint those books. Don't change anything."Thank you Ceika for the wonderful Avatar avatar!
-
2012-01-10, 08:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
Re: [3.5/PF/4.0] 5.0 in the News
WotC/Hasbro doesn't want to make the best game they can, though. They want to make the best selling game they can. Given how 4e forced a segmentation of the market, it's fairly easy to think "hey, maybe we should distance ourselves from 4e, and call back to the 'good old days.'" Is this, ultimately, a good idea or a bad idea? That's debatable, both ways, but it seems in line with this company's decision making process.
-
2012-01-10, 08:16 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2008
- Location
- Orlando, FL
- Gender
Re: 5th Edition hopes?
As the main DM for my group, I totally am on board with this. :)
I never understood why most monsters have a natural attack system different than what the PCs use and some monsters were difficult to scale up. I'd like a system to scale monsters as easy as adding "class levels" to them. Without having to actually add PC class levels in all cases.
Throwing a few levels of rogue works for something like Kobolds, but PCs tend to call BS when they get sneak-attacked by a shambling mound with evasion.Last edited by DigoDragon; 2012-01-10 at 08:16 AM.
-
2012-01-10, 08:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Gender
Re: [3.5/PF/4.0] 5.0 in the News
Honestly, I think this is an unrealistic expectation. I think D&D should play radically different at different levels. 1e had the adventurer graduating to a castle or other base around name level. BECMI had the dungeon / wilderness / dominion / apotheon / immortal paradigm.
If you want to play against goblins through your career, what you need is to play with a limited set of character levels. Goblins (and even giants) simply aren't and shouldn't be a relevant foe for someone seeking to join the ranks of the gods.
That said, even Tucker's kobolds were a match for a moderately high level party. A lot depends on how intelligently an enemy is played.
-
2012-01-10, 09:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Location
Re: 5th Edition hopes?
So to sum up, we the Playground collectively demand from WotC that when 5e is released we should see that it...
- has similarities to 4e
- has no similarities to 4e
- has similarities to 3e
- has no similarities to 3e
- has similarities to AD&D
- has no similarities to AD&D
- uses vancian casting
- doesn't use vancian casting
- has a small list of generic classes
- has a wide lists of unique classes
- has better social skills
- has no social skills
- puts more fluff in splatbboks
- puts less fluff in splatbooks
- has strong multiclassing
- has no multiclassing
- is well balanced
- puts less emphasis on being "balanced"
- gives powers to everyone
- doesn't have powers for fighters
- is revolutionary, fresh and visionary
- stays true to its roots and still feels like DnD
and last but not least
23. doesn't break the fanbase in half and provoke massive edition wars.
Is there anything anyone else wants ot add or should I print this off already and mail it to WotC?If a tree falls in the forest and the PCs aren't around to hear it... what do I roll to see how loud it is?
Is 3.5 a fried-egg, chili-chutney sandwich?
-
2012-01-10, 09:04 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: [3.5/PF/4.0] 5.0 in the News
If it's only 10 levels out of 30, then I can live with it. But in 3rd Edition by the time you can start a game that has more than a single giant as enemies, goblins have become redundant. I'd like to be able to not lose some things of the game while gaining access to others.
We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.
Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying
-
2012-01-10, 09:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: [3.5/PF/4.0] 5.0 in the News
Thing is, that's the absolute worst reason to target 3.5 players. Let them have Pathfinder; everyone else who already didn't want 3.5.or Pathfinder (and they've had plenty of time to play both and decide) won't want anything else that's aiming at 3.P players.
This is not to say there's zero overlap between, say, 4e and 3.x, or OSRIC and 3.x, but I think it's small enough that WotC could starve on the margins.Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2012-01-10, 09:30 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Gender
Re: 5th Edition hopes?
I think WotC already got your email
But hey, if anyone wants input they'd best sign up now.Lead Designer for Oracle Hunter GamesToday a Blog, Tomorrow a Business!
~ Awesome Avatar by the phantastic Phase ~Spoiler
Elflad