Page 23 of 50 FirstFirst ... 13141516171819202122232425262728293031323348 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 690 of 1486
  1. - Top - End - #661
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    Yes. We know this because they (or similar people) have designed 3E and 4E, and there are no glaring fundamental design flaws in either of those...

    ...wait
    They have flaws, but I would call them neither fundamental nor glaring. For example it takes a fair bit of knowledge of the game before you realize the superiority of spellcasters in 3.5. Or an internet connection, but just because someone else pointed it out to you doesn't make it a glaring flaw.

    And even with all of it's flaws, the systems (both of them) have large fanbases with tons of people playing and enjoying them. You can say that they only get players "because they're DnD", but you don't become DnD by being incompetent, slobbering fools. If other RPGs were really that much better than DnD, then they would be the big name brands. Brand loyalty only goes so far.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  2. - Top - End - #662
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    They have flaws, but I would call them neither fundamental nor glaring. For example it takes a fair bit of knowledge of the game before you realize the superiority of spellcasters in 3.5. Or an internet connection, but just because someone else pointed it out to you doesn't make it a glaring flaw.

    And even with all of it's flaws, the systems (both of them) have large fanbases with tons of people playing and enjoying them. You can say that they only get players "because they're DnD", but you don't become DnD by being incompetent, slobbering fools. If other RPGs were really that much better than DnD, then they would be the big name brands. Brand loyalty only goes so far.
    *slow clap*
    This, so much this. You, sir, are my favorite playgrounder for today.

  3. - Top - End - #663
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    TheOOB's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    They have flaws, but I would call them neither fundamental nor glaring. For example it takes a fair bit of knowledge of the game before you realize the superiority of spellcasters in 3.5. Or an internet connection, but just because someone else pointed it out to you doesn't make it a glaring flaw.

    And even with all of it's flaws, the systems (both of them) have large fanbases with tons of people playing and enjoying them. You can say that they only get players "because they're DnD", but you don't become DnD by being incompetent, slobbering fools. If other RPGs were really that much better than DnD, then they would be the big name brands. Brand loyalty only goes so far.
    D&D 3.5 is a deeply flawed system, as is 4e, but they are both good systems. Someone may not like what they do, but they obviously do something well. Anyone who says either system is "bad" is flat out wrong. That's like saying Shakespears works are bad because you don't like Elizabethan English.

    Remember that D&D 3/3.5 brought D&D into the mainstream and started an RPG revolution that created literally hundreds of new games, and dramatically improved the quality and variety of RPGs available, and 4e has created an environment where you can go to nearly any gamestore Wednesday night and play a game with people you've never seen before and have fun. That's downright amazing, and it didn't happen by accident.

    That said, D&D does get a lot of players because of it's reputation and marketing. I've seen a lot of people playing D&D who really should eb playing a different system for their game, but they stick with D&D either out of ignorance of other systems existence, or an unwillingness to learn a new system. D&D is like a pair of pliers, it works for many jobs, and some times it's even the best tool for the job, but sometimes a box wrench just does it better.
    Last edited by TheOOB; 2012-11-13 at 03:27 AM.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  4. - Top - End - #664
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Ichneumon's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    So, what is the general opinion here about D&D Next?

    I've been reading it and I'm quite positive actually. Haven't played it yet, but reading it the rules seem very "unintrusive", like you don't need a grid to play if you don't want to, character creation is very quick and you can use as much of the rules as you want to, customize background/specialities if you want to or just pick one.

  5. - Top - End - #665
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    D&D 3.5 is a deeply flawed system, as is 4e, but they are both good systems.
    Precisely.

    The thing is this: if you believe 3E and 4E are good systems despite their flaws, then I'm not sure why you would want or need a new edition as replacement. If you believe that 3E's and 4E's flaws render them undesirable, then I'm not sure why you believe 5E will be any different. Which brings us to...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ichneumon View Post
    So, what is the general opinion here about D&D Next?
    In my opinion, it does nothing that 3E and 4E don't do, and 3E and 4E simply do it better. 5E is redundant with earlier editions, and does less good a job then they. Based on the playtests so far, I wouldn't mind playing 5E (although I wouldn't prefer it), but I'm not seeing sufficient added value to warrant buying it.
    Crystal Shard Studios - classy freeware games!

    Utility Belt wizard (Batman 4E-style) * Chocolate!

  6. - Top - End - #666
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    I would say it doesn't do anything that 3rd or 4th Edition didn't do, but it does it better than either.

    So far from what I've seen in many places, most people are quite happy with what they've seen so far.
    Spriggan's Den - Thoughts on RPGs and some of my personal creations.
    Ancient Lands - PF/d20 Sword & Sorcery campaign setting

  7. - Top - End - #667
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Craft (Cheese)'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Ichneumon View Post
    So, what is the general opinion here about D&D Next?

    I've been reading it and I'm quite positive actually. Haven't played it yet, but reading it the rules seem very "unintrusive", like you don't need a grid to play if you don't want to, character creation is very quick and you can use as much of the rules as you want to, customize background/specialities if you want to or just pick one.
    As for the latest playtest:

    - The Rogue is ridiculously weak, as its only gimmick is skill usage which is basically worthless. Anything it can do, the Fighter does better.

    - Maneuvers and expertise dice are a neat idea, but need to be taken further. Many of the maneuvers simply don't scale as much as they should (and they try way too hard to throw the dice rolling into it when it's really unnecessary), some of them are flat-out worthless to begin with, and characters get way, way, way too few maneuvers.

    - The magic item rules are horrible. As in, unplayable horrible. They're also laughably the complete opposite of their stated intentions regarding magic items, which is that they're super rare quest items where you only even see one or two per campaign.

    - They still have no clue what they're doing with healing, and it shows. They have several systems in the playtest packet for healing but none of them really seem to work the way they intended.

  8. - Top - End - #668
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    They have flaws, but I would call them neither fundamental nor glaring. For example it takes a fair bit of knowledge of the game before you realize the superiority of spellcasters in 3.5. Or an internet connection, but just because someone else pointed it out to you doesn't make it a glaring flaw.
    Not exactly, at least in my group. It took 3 sessions for the druid to claim that his animal companion could beat the party fighter, succeed in doing so, and for the fighter to reroll as a sorcerer. Not sure how that constitutes a fair bit of knowledge. All it takes is looking at Core feats and comparing them to Core spells.

    And even with all of it's flaws, the systems (both of them) have large fanbases with tons of people playing and enjoying them. You can say that they only get players "because they're DnD", but you don't become DnD by being incompetent, slobbering fools. If other RPGs were really that much better than DnD, then they would be the big name brands. Brand loyalty only goes so far.
    This I agree with though. I still love to play 3.5 but it does require quite a bit of gentlemanly agreements and a bit of homebrew.


    Anyway, mostly I just want them to pick a single class, say the wizard and actually plan out what it should be doing at what level. Complete it and then develop the rest of the classes around that benchmark. I don't know what they're doing now, but whatever they're trying leaves oddities all over the place that look rushed and poorly thought out.

  9. - Top - End - #669
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    obryn's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Ichneumon View Post
    So, what is the general opinion here about D&D Next?
    Lukewarm at best. I'd rather run 1e, 4e, or RC so far. Since those cover my D&D bases very well, I am left puzzled as to why I need Next. (And if none of those fit the bill, I'm thinking I could run D&D using Savage Worlds quite nicely.)

    At the moment, I'm not interested in running the Next playtest. I think I'll sit this packet out and maybe see if the next one actually fixes my major issue - boring combats with weak and ineffective monsters.

    -O

  10. - Top - End - #670
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PirateCaptain

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The Hurricane State
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Dienekes View Post
    Not exactly, at least in my group. It took 3 sessions for the druid to claim that his animal companion could beat the party fighter, succeed in doing so, and for the fighter to reroll as a sorcerer. Not sure how that constitutes a fair bit of knowledge. All it takes is looking at Core feats and comparing them to Core spells.
    I know I've re-hashed this story before, but in my first D&D group, we were using 3.5 and my (ex girlfriend) was playing druid and thought she was completely useless for the first half of the school year. She begged to re-roll as a bard. She was a senior at the time.

    Yes, knowing what I know now, made me happy. I didn't know druid was quite as broken as it is, but I knew it was not useless either.

    I like the progress of Next, and with a year and half or more time spent I can see it being worth buying. But if they asked for money right now, I would laugh and say "No."
    Boo!

    Steam ID: Dublock

    Battle tag: Dublock 1-7-2-5

    Feel free to add me but say GitP :)

  11. - Top - End - #671
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    In my opinion, it does nothing that 3E and 4E don't do, and 3E and 4E simply do it better. 5E is redundant with earlier editions, and does less good a job then they. Based on the playtests so far, I wouldn't mind playing 5E (although I wouldn't prefer it), but I'm not seeing sufficient added value to warrant buying it.
    It may be cynical, but I think 5E is all about wanting to apologize to all the fired 3E customers WOTC p'ed off with 4E while at the same time wanting to reassure the 4E fans they're still loved. They can't go back completely to the 3E model, so we get 5E - new mechanics everyone can learn together but with familiar elements of previous editions so that no one feels left out.

  12. - Top - End - #672
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    While that isn't the full story behind the 5th Ed design, I think it's quite certainly true.
    Spriggan's Den - Thoughts on RPGs and some of my personal creations.
    Ancient Lands - PF/d20 Sword & Sorcery campaign setting

  13. - Top - End - #673
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    obryn's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by navar100 View Post
    It may be cynical, but I think 5E is all about wanting to apologize to all the fired 3E customers WOTC p'ed off with 4E while at the same time wanting to reassure the 4E fans they're still loved. They can't go back completely to the 3E model, so we get 5E - new mechanics everyone can learn together but with familiar elements of previous editions so that no one feels left out.
    Judging from what I can see, it's really not working.

    As a 4e player, I see a combination of backward steps to legacy mechanics and kind of a craven approach to 4e concepts like minor actions and the "bloodied" condition which are couched in walls of text instead of just being called out. For example, Wizards in the recent playtest had Encounter spells. They weren't called that, but that's what they were. Healing Word? A minor action. Not called that, but that's what it was. It seems clear to me that they're not making the game for me. Mind you - this is fine. I have my games already, and I don't need WotC's blessing.

    Oldschool players I've communicated with generally seem to have liked the first packet pretty well, but think it's getting overly complicated and moving too far in a 3e/4e direction.

    And I've seen a good many 3e players lamenting that it's too much like 4e. Which just goes to show.

    The honest truth is, I think, that there's enough kinds of D&D games now targeted to their audiences that the best Next can hope for is to be everyone's second-favorite edition. Which is fine, I suppose, but not something I can really get excited about.

    -O

  14. - Top - End - #674
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Scowling Dragon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Im kinda meh on 5e now myself.

    By now we can say that we have seen quite a bit of meat on the bones, and it just isn't impressive.

    Its like a blander 3e with 4e elements.

  15. - Top - End - #675
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    I would call it going back to 2nd Edition and giving it a second try at making the changes that worked in 3rd Ed. while not repeating the mistakes that where made.

    Even just the playtest version that doesn't yet have a ranger and druid class is my favorite D&D version so far. It feels like 2nd Edition without the retarded math. They would have to flood this one with a lot of bad class features to make me like it less than E6 3.5e.
    Spriggan's Den - Thoughts on RPGs and some of my personal creations.
    Ancient Lands - PF/d20 Sword & Sorcery campaign setting

  16. - Top - End - #676
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Clawhound's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    MD
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    I think that the designers are aiming for a look and feel to the game that is inherently open-ended.

    Today, there are more than enough MMO's to satisfy the RPG community. You can sit down and play for free, killing lots of monsters. However, these games are what they are. They are consumer entertainment.

    D&D's strength is that it runs off the rails. Therefore, they are designing a game whose whole purpose is to leave the rails, and even the trails, behind. They are moving the game into a place where no MMO can go. I generally find that a good idea. If they are to survive as a game selling company, they need to sell something that you can't for free from a computer game company, and the results must be worth paying for.

  17. - Top - End - #677
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    I don't really know enough about D&D Next to contribute to the current topic, but there's another thing I'm curious about. How does D&D Next as it is now handle using Dexterity as the main attribute for fighters? In 3.5 D&D it's hard to make a warrior-type who focuses on Dexterity. 4e seems to be a bit better about it, but I don't know it enough.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Kid Kris. Sigatars by Gulaghar, Kid Kris, Zefir and billtodamax, respectively.

  18. - Top - End - #678
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Nu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Beyond the flow of time

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    I don't really know enough about D&D Next to contribute to the current topic, but there's another thing I'm curious about. How does D&D Next as it is now handle using Dexterity as the main attribute for fighters? In 3.5 D&D it's hard to make a warrior-type who focuses on Dexterity. 4e seems to be a bit better about it, but I don't know it enough.
    I'm almost convinced that going maximum Dex is the best way to play a fighter in Next. Dexterity still seems the best statistic to me, improving attack/damage with finesse weapons and most ranged weapons, AC in light armor, Dex saving throws (which seem to be among the most common), and Initiative. It's not quite a slam-dunk though, because finesse weapons have low damage dice, and leather armor with a +4 Dex mod still won't match chainmail (once you have a +5 dex mod though it evens out). At the very least it should be very competitive with a Strength-based fighter.

  19. - Top - End - #679
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    And of course none of this takes into account how much physical stats fluctuate with activity in real life, or that to be a good fighter dexterity is actually slightly more important than strength, and strength is really more supplementary. Of course, the latter is because real humans are quite fragile and hitting and avoiding being hit are more important than dealing huge amounts of damage.
    Jude P.

    Playing Pokémon X
    3DS friend code: 0705-3326-2027
    4- or 5-IV Pokémon available for trade listed on my Giant League Wiki page.

  20. - Top - End - #680
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    obryn's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Nu View Post
    It's not quite a slam-dunk though, because finesse weapons have low damage dice,
    I think it's safe to say, with how fighters are looking now, damage dice are nearly irrelevant. When you're rolling 3d10+X, it doesn't make a huge difference if X is 1d6 or 1d8 (or even 1d10).

    (4e ran into a similar situation with static modifiers, and as a result light blades are basically the uberweapon.)

    -O

  21. - Top - End - #681
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by obryn View Post
    I think it's safe to say, with how fighters are looking now, damage dice are nearly irrelevant. When you're rolling 3d10+X, it doesn't make a huge difference if X is 1d6 or 1d8 (or even 1d10).

    (4e ran into a similar situation with static modifiers, and as a result light blades are basically the uberweapon.)

    -O
    There could be aesthetic value. D8 > D6 despite > not being large. Size matters. Half chance of rolling 5, 6, 7, or 8 subjectively feels better than third chance of rolling 5 or 6. Over infinite rolls it doesn't matter, but the instantaneous value of the moment does.

  22. - Top - End - #682
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    obryn's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by navar100 View Post
    There could be aesthetic value. D8 > D6 despite > not being large. Size matters. Half chance of rolling 5, 6, 7, or 8 subjectively feels better than third chance of rolling 5 or 6. Over infinite rolls it doesn't matter, but the instantaneous value of the moment does.
    Yeah, it's possible for a player to make that choice, but the mechanics should ideally recognize intelligent players making somewhat optimized decisions.

  23. - Top - End - #683
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Seerow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by navar100 View Post
    There could be aesthetic value. D8 > D6 despite > not being large. Size matters. Half chance of rolling 5, 6, 7, or 8 subjectively feels better than third chance of rolling 5 or 6. Over infinite rolls it doesn't matter, but the instantaneous value of the moment does.
    Luckily you have 3 d10s to give you that feeling of rolling bigger dice, regardless of your actual weapon die size.
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  24. - Top - End - #684
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Nu View Post
    I'm almost convinced that going maximum Dex is the best way to play a fighter in Next. Dexterity still seems the best statistic to me, improving attack/damage with finesse weapons and most ranged weapons, AC in light armor, Dex saving throws (which seem to be among the most common), and Initiative. It's not quite a slam-dunk though, because finesse weapons have low damage dice, and leather armor with a +4 Dex mod still won't match chainmail (once you have a +5 dex mod though it evens out). At the very least it should be very competitive with a Strength-based fighter.
    Mhm. I've heard something about there being more finesse weapons. How many of them are there?
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Kid Kris. Sigatars by Gulaghar, Kid Kris, Zefir and billtodamax, respectively.

  25. - Top - End - #685
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Nu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Beyond the flow of time

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    Mhm. I've heard something about there being more finesse weapons. How many of them are there?
    In the current packet? Eight. And you don't need a feat to use them properly.

  26. - Top - End - #686
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    They do not seem to have an evaluation function other than the survey results, and they don't seem to have a heuristic other than "throw random ideas at the things people don't like", that we can see. You're perfectly right that they very well could have a much more involved process we're simply not seeing, but I see no reason to assume this is so. Especially because the only evidence that there *is* more going on behind the scenes is "Well, they're professionals, and professionals aren't incompetent."
    Actually, we have two other rather convincing pieces of evidence:

    1) It's how they designed every other game they've done until this point.

    2) For a company we're so sure is doing this in part because Hasbro doesn't like how the sales of 4e have gone, I really don't see "We're going to design our next flagship product which will carry our line through the next 5 years minimum by throwing random ideas at a dart board, and letting the internet decide on everything!" going over so well in the board meetings.

    Yes. We know this because they (or similar people) have designed 3E and 4E, and there are no glaring fundamental design flaws in either of those...

    ...wait
    Aside from what Agent Paper already said, it's also worth pointing out that 3e was such a failure of game design that after WotC dropped it, another company came by, took the exact same game, added some patches and then resold the game to an entire generation of gamers who already owned the game.

    Or to put it more succinctly, just because a game has some large flaws does not mean the game is ultimately a bad game. No product is ever perfect, and every abstraction and simulation has holes. The ultimate test of whether or not a game is any good is do the players come back time and time again, even if they have alternatives? I think D&D has proven itself to be a quality game, despite its "glaring flaws."

    So, what is the general opinion here about D&D Next?
    Personally, I'm cautiously optimistic. There are definitely things they still need to fix, but on the whole I think they're succeeding in creating a system that feels like D&D, is simpler to start and get started in and is generally disconnected enough that you could add or remove parts as you saw fit and still have a workable game. The most recent L&L indicates that they are aware that the current packet is larger than what they have indicated they want the "core" to be, and that the ultimate plan is to pare that down into a core and start moving everything else into packaged modules, and that will certainly be an interesting process to see.

    In general, I have noticed a trend, which is that you will most likely find positive opinions of the play test from people who have actually sat down and played with the system, and negative opinions from people who have mostly just read the material. This suggests to me that they need considerable work on their presentation, and that like many things in life, theory is different from practice.

    The thing is this: if you believe 3E and 4E are good systems despite their flaws, then I'm not sure why you would want or need a new edition as replacement. If you believe that 3E's and 4E's flaws render them undesirable, then I'm not sure why you believe 5E will be any different. Which brings us to...
    Perhaps because you think that if you took the good parts of 3e and the good parts of 4e, and the good parts of 2e and you meshed them together, you'd get an even better system? I think 4e is a good system. It's not my cup of tea, but I play it regularly and I think its good. Same with 3e. Doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer a system that's a better mashup of the best of both.

    They still have no clue what they're doing with healing, and it shows. They have several systems in the playtest packet for healing but none of them really seem to work the way they intended.
    This is very true, and honestly, I think one thing they ought to consider is just breaking down their system into the core which is the raw, base resolution mechanics and then some "heroic tiers" (as distinct from level tiers in 4e). Say Traditional, High Fantasy and Big Damn Heroes tiers, and at each one just provide the basic mechanics that support that flavor. So traditional might have no or low healing between encounters, slow limited healing per day, fragile characters with random HP progression, pure vancian spells and limited expertise dice. The High Fantasy tier would introduce more available healing, limited at-will spells, a faster expertise dice progression, backgrounds and feats/skills. The Big Damn Heroes tier would introduce more at will and encounter based spell casting, a healing surge mechanic very similar to 4e (with a better indication that at this tier HP is basically a measure of how long you can stay in one individual fight), bigger expertise dice pools with additional powers and maneuvers that don't require expenditure of expertise dice. Then rather than trying to come up with one healing mechanic (and others) to rule them all, they can have individual distinct ones for each play style the tier is trying to encourage.

    Anyway, mostly I just want them to pick a single class, say the wizard and actually plan out what it should be doing at what level. Complete it and then develop the rest of the classes around that benchmark. I don't know what they're doing now, but whatever they're trying leaves oddities all over the place that look rushed and poorly thought out.
    I think the problem with this is it naturally leads to comparing classes side by side. In some ways I think the best thing for them to do would be to simply design each class independently, asking themselves "If I were playing this class through an adventure and going from level 1 to 10, what would make me have fun?" Then once they have each class that is entertaining on its own merits, they can mash them together and work out the synergies and conflicts. Unfortunately, I think to make that work, they would have to surrender the idea of levels being comparable across classes and all classes leveling and gaining powers at the same time and rate.

    As a 4e player, I see a combination of backward steps to legacy mechanics and kind of a craven approach to 4e concepts like minor actions and the "bloodied" condition which are couched in walls of text instead of just being called out. For example, Wizards in the recent playtest had Encounter spells. They weren't called that, but that's what they were. Healing Word? A minor action. Not called that, but that's what it was. It seems clear to me that they're not making the game for me. Mind you - this is fine. I have my games already, and I don't need WotC's blessing.
    I think the important thing to realize is that getting into RPGs is a jargon heavy endeavor, and while 4e was great about generally being legal contract clear about what's going on, it was also about as exciting and interesting as reading said legal contracts. For a lot of newer players, this means eyes glazing over, in addition to as they pointed out, people feeling like they had to do something with their full action economy each turn. By simply putting minor actions in where they belong and otherwise leaving them out, and by having an "encounter like" mechanic without having defined "encounters" they're hoping to eliminate some of these problems.

  27. - Top - End - #687
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Nu View Post
    In the current packet? Eight. And you don't need a feat to use them properly.
    I see. That's a step in the right direction, definetly. Would it be possible to recieve a list of them?
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Kid Kris. Sigatars by Gulaghar, Kid Kris, Zefir and billtodamax, respectively.

  28. - Top - End - #688
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jan 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Has there been said or indicated something as to the art in D&D next? (I'm not following the packets and such as much as I'd like.) Because that's one of my main reasons to love 3.5. Those start of chapter - panels were gorgeus!

  29. - Top - End - #689
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    obryn's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    The monk was just released.

    It uses expertise dice.

    Of course.

  30. - Top - End - #690
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    I see. That's a step in the right direction, definetly. Would it be possible to recieve a list of them?
    Can't you download the playtest packet?

    Quote Originally Posted by obryn View Post
    The monk was just released.

    It uses expertise dice.

    Of course.
    There's an update today? Man I wish their system worked. I don't get emails anymore.
    Jude P.

    Playing Pokémon X
    3DS friend code: 0705-3326-2027
    4- or 5-IV Pokémon available for trade listed on my Giant League Wiki page.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •