Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

My opinion of it without saying much about it.


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

1 to 50 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

So I have the playtest and I'm not certain what I can and can not say about it, but I feel I can say this: From what I've read, it's pretty much a simplified 3.5. In fact it reminds me (again from what little there is) of Castles and Crusades.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Exiled Prince wrote:

So I have the playtest and I'm not certain what I can and can not say about it, but I feel I can say this: From what I've read, it's pretty much a simplified 3.5. In fact it reminds me (again from what little there is) of Castles and Crusades.

These are precisely the reasons I like what I'm seeing so far.


My impression is "Slimed down 3.5e". Which could really quite well be my favorite Edition of D&D. Nice.


yea but there's feats in it so it can't be that slim. :)


There aren't any feats.

Edit: I stand corrected. On looking at the character write-ups, I see that they get feats as they level up.

The feats and the experience points look like 3.5.

The class abilities look like 4E.


My group liked it. So did I. Flexible, accessible, fun.

I am interested enough to keep playing, and eager to see the next phase of materials.

I think it's a win, just on first impressions.


By the way, as far as what you can and can't say about the playtest: You can talk about it all you want. Just don't reprint the rules verbatim in whole or in part. Basically, if it would be a violation of copyright normally, it's probably a violation of the playtest terms.


My first impressions, quite a few 3E (and previous edition) elements with a few nods to 4E. Can't say I'm happy about the weapons (though I like the bastardsword 'special') or the lack of things a Fighter can do in combat besides roll and hit (but it's the 1st playtest, so I'll go easy).

Also, while I'm not sure if Monsters will be designed like PCs (*sigh* again) or it just looks that way, but I don't like the fact that spells are used without any description. perhaps it's an attempt to save space but lets hope their powers are spelled out like in 4E. That made things really conveinent as a DM.

I like Familiars.

I like how some of the Spells work.

I like how Turn Undead is a spell now clerics can use when it's useful (and not a full aspect of their class that is usable only...sometimes).

And I like how they did Saving Throws and Skills.


The lack of obvious attack progression is interesting, and arguably more 4th than 4th. Hit points, short rests, and rituals remind me of 4th. Saves are somewhere between 3.x and 4th.

The rest largely reminds me of 2nd edition AD&D. We're no longer manipulating a board of squares, command is back to its pre-3.5 generality and DM adjudication, silence can be used for non-combat silence for an extended period rather than just knock out a spellcaster in combat, spells are mostly prepared (though magic missile is now a 4e-ish use-as-often-as-you-like). Bonuses apparently don't have types. Magic items are mostly removed from the economy, which is 2nd all the way. The PCs rather look like a 2e char built with race/class/secondary skill/kit, except the old 1e/2e secondary skills were entirely DM judgment (and officially incompatible with kits). Monster entries feel AD&D-esque. Alignments are back where they've been since 1978. Even electrum pieces!


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I have a broadly positive impression, although I doubt it's going to sit well with our group. I quite like the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, but I suspect it's going to get annoying in play at higher levels working out how things interact. We'll see I guess.

The main negative I see is the monster statblocks - they seem to have gone back to pre-4E and I thought the newer approach was far superior. I'd want to see a succinct, half page sized, statblock together with a page and a half of tactics/ecology/other flavor material.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really didn't think they could deliver on making it like all D&D editions, but I see people in this thread identifying bits of AD&D, 3e, and 4e. And I think it's got quite a few things from the RUles Cyclopedia, so there's some BD&D in there too. Kudos on that WotC.


If they went away from the 4E monster statblocks I'm thinking they aren't paying attention to thier audience. Even the most rabid 4E haters I know love the 4E monster stat blocks. If there is anything that has universal appeal they are seeking out of everything from 4th, the Monster Manual layout is probably it.


I was actually pleasantly surprised with some of the design decisions.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber

What's really funny is the difference between "compatibility with the previous edition" issue in 4E and 5E development.

2007
"Will it be compatible with 3E?"
"Can I use my Duskblade?"
"What about that 300 USD worth of books I bought last week?"

2012
*crickets*
*tumbleweed*


Gorbacz wrote:

What's really funny is the difference between "compatibility with the previous edition" issue in 4E and 5E development.

2007
"Will it be compatible with 3E?"
"Can I use my Duskblade?"
"What about that 300 USD worth of books I bought last week?"

2012
*crickets*
*tumbleweed*

I think most of that has to do with the fact that we were told, months ago, that 5e would not be directly compatible with any previous editions. In fact, before one of the WotC guys clarified that (some people were under the mistaken impression that it would be compatible) a lot of people were asking those sorts of questions.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

What's really funny is the difference between "compatibility with the previous edition" issue in 4E and 5E development.

2007
"Will it be compatible with 3E?"
"Can I use my Duskblade?"
"What about that 300 USD worth of books I bought last week?"

2012
*crickets*
*tumbleweed*

I think most of that has to do with the fact that we were told, months ago, that 5e would not be directly compatible with any previous editions. In fact, before one of the WotC guys clarified that (some people were under the mistaken impression that it would be compatible) a lot of people were asking those sorts of questions.

Agreed and seconded. They told us from the start it would not be compitable. Acting shocked and dismayed at this point is not doing your research as a consumer. Can't always blame the paret company.


Going a bit more in-depth:

Each player fielded a different pre-gen and we dove right into the Caves of Chaos, running our way through the first kobold lair. I didn't even bother using a battle grid outside the first cave, where eight kobolds lay in wait. The dwarf fighter walked right up to the mouth of the cave and struck a torch, and was caught by surprise by the ambushing kobolds. I like that surprise is left entirely up to the GM - you simply decide who is and isn't caught off-guard and adjust initiative accordingly. The kobolds are pretty standard for D&D fare - nearly impossible to not kill in one hit, but with decent AC due to high Dex and an advantage mechanic that kicks in whenever they outnumber their foes, which was really cool.

They traded blows with the kobolds (I had the enemies break off in pairs and attack each of the four visible characters two at a time, since the halfling rogue immediately hid at the top of the initiative count) and combat lasted about three rounds. The dwarf cleric had an ability which allowed him to give disadvantage to an attacker going after an ally if he's adjacent to that ally, so he drew close to the elf wizard, who pretty much slung magic missiles the whole fight, and protected him. The human cleric did the same, sticking with the other casters and tossing radiant lances at kobolds, then healing when it was necessary. Once a single kobold was remaining, he tried to flee into the cave to alert his buddies - but the wizard went immediately after the kobold's double move (called hustling) and used ray of frost, which reduces a target's movement to zero for 1 round rather than dealing damage. The fighter made easy work of him. (My wife played the dwarf fighter and was rolling like crap last night - but the slayer theme gives her the ability to do a small amount of damage on any given attack even if she misses, which she enjoyed. At low levels this seems to give fighters a clear advantage and weigh most combats heavily in favor of the PCs, but I suspect that is a class ability which does not scale well with experience since it's based on ability modifiers.)

Inside, the fighter and rogue led the way (the halfing rogue can actually hide behind allies and then pop out and sneak attack, which I rather like; the rogue hid behind the dwarf fighter for most of the night) and walked right into a pit trap, but they both dodged it. Unfortunately, the trap noise drew out six more kobolds and a swarm of 18 rats led by a dire rat. The facing and space rules for tiny creatures seemed to indicate that a lot of them could occupy a very small amount of space, so I had them run into the area and attack about six at a time, chewing and biting at the human cleric who had moved into position behind the rogue. The wizard came up behind the human cleric and put his arms around his waist, fanning his fingers and casting burning hands, which eliminated ALL of the rats in one shot because they were so tightly packed in the corridor. Meanwhile, the kobolds were taking turns moving forward two at a time to attack with daggers while their buddies stayed back and threw spears (I had to kind of ad hoc their ranged attack bonuses, as the stats only gave their melee attack scores with weapons). The fighter and rogue took them out easily with greataxe and sling attacks, and the dwarf cleric moved in to heal the fighter who got hit by two criticals from kobolds - ouch.

The next chamber was described as having about 40 kobolds in it (sort of a restock pool for making the dungeon harder), but I ain't got that many miniatures. They wanted to go in guns blazing (I worked in a story hook about them being able to cash in kobold heads for a bounty in Threshold) so I let them fight ten more kobolds and then cow the rest into submission with Charisma checks once the warriors were gone. The lack of hard alignment rules allowed me to propose a moral dilemma about killing the remaining kobold women and children, and this ended up dividing the party - only the halfling and the elf were willing to engage in wholesale slaughter for profit.

The rogue got in the habit of wanting to check for traps every five feet after the pit trap was triggered, but the system covers this handily - the rogue's Skill Mastery ability basically made him unable to roll anything under a 16 on a Find Traps or Remove Lock roll, so unless the DC was higher than that, I could just tell him to move on (and this leg of the dungeon had no more traps anyway). That was a nice time saver.

The last major conflict was with three elite kobolds (what I assume are the equivalent of 3-4 HD monsters), five regular kobold grunts, and a kobold chieftain. This was over really fast, because the wizard blew his last burning hands spell when they rushed the group, and the melee hitters made short work of the chieftain.

All in all, the first leg felt VERY easy and they seem extremely resilient to damage with the exception of lucky crits. I'm hoping the next leg will be a bit more challenging. My dilemma as a GM right now is, do I keep running the Caves of Chaos (we've only done 6 out of about 64 rooms) or try to create my own scenario using the ruleset? I don't know if the feedback quality I give will be more useful using the provided scenario, or if they want people to go "off-script", as it were.

Also, I did notice a rules discrepancy that may have been due to a class or racial ability rather than a misprint - the rules list greataxes as dealing 1d12 damage, but my wife's dwarf fighter had 2d6 listed on her sheet for the same weapon. I wondered if perhaps that was some sort of racial benefit to boost minimum damage instead of an outright mistake, but I may be reading too much into that.

The system feels very flexible and open to GM fiat. The wizard came up with some creative spell applications, and I enjoyed being able to dictate the flavor of certain things myself - every time the priest killed a kobold with his radiant lance spell, for instance, I ruled that the positive energy overloaded the kobold and made him burst and pop like a firework, so there was no body left behind on which to collect a bounty. =] I do see many similarities to Castles & Crusades, especially in the ability-score-centric mechanics, and I really like that aspect of it. I also like that DCs don't have to scale and climb with PC level - the difficulty mechanic uses the same numerical spectrum across all levels of play, judging by the rules, and that's very helpful in my opinion. [EDIT: Oh, and YMMV, but we LOVE the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. I also like that you can split movement before and after an action without needing extra abilities like Shot on the Run or Spring Attack, and that there's no opportunity attacks baked in from the start.]

So, as I say - first impressions are very strong. We're ready for more.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Grey Lensman wrote:
If they went away from the 4E monster statblocks I'm thinking they aren't paying attention to thier audience. Even the most rabid 4E haters I know love the 4E monster stat blocks. If there is anything that has universal appeal they are seeking out of everything from 4th, the Monster Manual layout is probably it.

It's not universal. One of the things I hated most about 4e was the different rules for monsters & NPCs & especially the monster stat blocks. I vastly preferred the detail provided by 3.x.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:

What's really funny is the difference between "compatibility with the previous edition" issue in 4E and 5E development.

2007
"Will it be compatible with 3E?"
"Can I use my Duskblade?"
"What about that 300 USD worth of books I bought last week?"

2012
*crickets*
*tumbleweed*

I think that they're banking on the idea that the 4e fanbase wasn't really concerned about compatability or they wouldn't have made the switch to 4e. For those who aren't 4e fans, THEY are banking on limited/no compatability with 4e.

But I think you make an excellent point at the striking difference in attitudes this go-round.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber

In 2007, the "no backwards compatibility" declaration caused an explosion.

Now all it does is cause a faint whimper from Neuroglyph.

Andoran

And why should it cause an explosion at this point. Those who like 3.5 can still use 3.5 and or their Pathfinder books. Those who like 4E can still use their 4E books. Those who still play 2E and below once again can still use their books also. No real reason to complain at his point. If Pathfinder had never seen light of day would be understandable. No one took anyone toys away. The only ones that seem bothered by it ar the ones using anything and everything as an excuse to stir up something. Only so many time certain elements in the community can get angry before people stop caring.


Power Word Unzip wrote:
My dilemma as a GM right now is, do I keep running the Caves of Chaos (we've only done 6 out of about 64 rooms) or try to create my own scenario using the ruleset? I don't know if the feedback quality I give will be more useful using the provided scenario, or if they want people to go "off-script", as it were.

Mearls said on the podcast (which is linked on the wotc site) that he was rather expecting DMs to start making up their own adventures straightaway. I'd take that as a green light, personally.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:

What's really funny is the difference between "compatibility with the previous edition" issue in 4E and 5E development.

2007
"Will it be compatible with 3E?"
"Can I use my Duskblade?"
"What about that 300 USD worth of books I bought last week?"

2012
*crickets*
*tumbleweed*

I've spent a few hundred dollars on 4E books during the last year or so that will soon be redundant. How am I supposed to be behaving exactly?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

What's really funny is the difference between "compatibility with the previous edition" issue in 4E and 5E development.

2007
"Will it be compatible with 3E?"
"Can I use my Duskblade?"
"What about that 300 USD worth of books I bought last week?"

2012
*crickets*
*tumbleweed*

I've spent a few hundred dollars on 4E books during the last year or so that will soon be redundant. How am I supposed to be behaving exactly?

No idea, maybe sitting on the top of some Himalayan mountain and chanting mantras?


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I meant what's really funny? I'm confused.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber

What's funny is that in 2007/2008 the then-current WotC customer base went ballistic when lack of backcomp was mentioned. The current WotC customer base didn't. So either they're not caring about 5E at all or are actually looking forward to switching. What's funny is how horribly did WotC fumble the edition switch then, as opposed to now.

(I still have that strange feeling it has more to do with the fact that 4E was so poorly adopted by the customer base that everybody is just relieved to see it go and sees 5E as what 4E was supposed to be to begin with, but I'm sure I'll have memorax and Scott running after me with flaming chainsaws for this comment. Sorry, couldn't resist!)

Shadow Lodge

Is there any room to customize your character?


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:

What's funny is that in 2007/2008 the then-current WotC customer base went ballistic when lack of backcomp was mentioned. The current WotC customer base didn't. So either they're not caring about 5E at all or are actually looking forward to switching. What's funny is how horribly did WotC fumble the edition switch then, as opposed to now.

(I still have that strange feeling it has more to do with the fact that 4E was so poorly adopted by the customer base that everybody is just relieved to see it go and sees 5E as what 4E was supposed to be to begin with, but I'm sure I'll have memorax and Scott running after me with flaming chainsaws for this comment. Sorry, couldn't resist!)

I'm sure you could have.

I think it's about better communication. Anyone buying a 4E book in the last year knew it was soon to be redundant. The lack of compatibility also seemed pretty well telegraphed to me.

I am looking forward to a new edition as I am hoping the sniping at games people don't play will grow less common. Despite the current tone, I'm still optimistic about that. It's going to be hard to maintain the rage if you're not a current WoTC fan, I would think. In that sense, I'm relieved to see 4E go.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Is there any room to customize your character?

Not yet. The character creation (and levelling) stuff isn't coming out for a while.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
(I still have that strange feeling it has more to do with the fact that 4E was so poorly adopted by the customer base that everybody is just relieved to see it go and sees 5E as what 4E was supposed to be to begin with...)

I tend to agree. Most of the players that I ran the game for last night have limited to moderate experience with 4E, and each of them said that they see how that edition has shaped this ruleset, but they each like the application of those game principles a lot better in Next than they did in 4E. I feel much the same way. A lot of what 4E introduced isn't going away - it's just now being presented in a way that feels better integrated into the traditional D&D style than the radical thematic departures 4E utilized.


Thanks for the assessment, PWU. I see a few things I'll have to watch for during my running (which won't be until Sat. night). The halfling's ability to hide behind people bigger than he is is a kind of neat trick.

One thing you mentioned that I don't like at all is the ability of a character--ANY character--to do damage on a miss. Might as well not bother to roll the dice and just strike dead any creature the character comes up against automatically.

That's hyperbole, of course, but exaggeration is useful to express an opinion, sometimes.

Conversely, for those of you who like this mechanic, how would you feel if NPCs and monsters had such an ability?

And I just discovered a spell I have issue with. Healing Word allows the cleric to whisper a word in the direction of an ally up to 50 feet away, bestowing 1d6 of healing on him, whithout breaking a sweat. The cleric can then attack, cast another spell, etc..

Again, how would you react if the monsters did this?

This on top of Short Rest and Con score + Hit dice for hit points.

Does WotC think we're DMing six-year-olds, with all the extra hit points and healing these characters have access to?


Gorbacz wrote:

What's funny is that in 2007/2008 the then-current WotC customer base went ballistic when lack of backcomp was mentioned. The current WotC customer base didn't. So either they're not caring about 5E at all or are actually looking forward to switching. What's funny is how horribly did WotC fumble the edition switch then, as opposed to now.

(I still have that strange feeling it has more to do with the fact that 4E was so poorly adopted by the customer base that everybody is just relieved to see it go and sees 5E as what 4E was supposed to be to begin with, but I'm sure I'll have memorax and Scott running after me with flaming chainsaws for this comment. Sorry, couldn't resist!)

I don't think it's an issue of looking forward to changing editions, so much as just being used to the idea of it not being compatible and expecting it. Like you said, in 07-08, it caused an explosion(since there were several brand new 3.5 books just released around the time 4e was announced). So, since a lot of fans got caught in the backdraft once already, we/they were prepared for 5e to already be incompatible.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

One thing you mentioned that I don't like at all is the ability of a character--ANY character--to do damage on a miss. Might as well not bother to roll the dice and just strike dead any creature the character comes up against automatically.

That's hyperbole, of course, but exaggeration is useful to express an opinion, sometimes.

Conversely, for those of you who like this mechanic, how would you feel if NPCs and monsters had such an ability?

And I just discovered a spell I have issue with. Healing Word allows the cleric to whisper a word in the direction of an ally up to 50 feet away, bestowing 1d6 of healing on him, whithout breaking a sweat. The cleric can then attack, cast another spell, etc..

Again, how would you react if the monsters did this?

This on top of Short Rest and Con score + Hit dice for hit points.

Does WotC think we're DMing six-year-olds, with all the extra hit points and healing these characters have access to?

As I say, the extra damage on a miss is negligible in the long run unless it's later made to scale with level. As it stands now, the mechanic lets you deal damage equal to the ability modifier used for the attack on a miss, and that applies to ranged and melee attacks alike. I do think the player should have to pick either Dex or Str and not benefit from both for this, though. But 3 points of damage (what the dwarf fighter is dealing on a miss) isn't game-breaking. It was potent last night because the enemies they faced only had 2 hp on average, but against beefier enemies at higher levels, it's going to be negligible.

Con + rolled HD is fine with me too. Heck, the Pathfinder Alpha/Beta did something similar IIRC.

And bringing back healing surges but tying them to Hit Dice integrates that mechanic into the shared language of the game. Rolled surge means you might come up on an 8, or you might land a 1 - so it's not a foolproof cure-all, and you'll still need potions or a healer in your group to keep going if you can't rest safely.

I also wouldn't mind the monsters getting some of the abilities too. Heck, the fact that kobolds roll twice and take the higher attack result as long as they out number their foes is a really cool idea to me. It encourages GMs to run swarms of low-hp monsters and let PCs feel like true heroes cutting them down wave after wave - and that lets the fighter shine with the damage on a missed attack. It's FUN, and since the biggest complaint of fighters in previous editions is that they feel less effective, this makes that problem subside. The fighter is VERY useful against low-difficulty opponents like rats and kobolds.

Now, if you like nothing that 4E brought to the table, then this game may not be for you. But if you're like me - i.e., you enjoy the concepts 4E tried to introduce but not the execution and the dry clinical application - then there's a lot to love about D&D Next judging by the first round of playtest materials.


There would be a LOT of whining on the part of PCs if they encountered a monster that did even 1 point of damage on a miss, let alone 3 or 4 points a pop.

As far as 4E elements are concerned.... I've said it elsewhere, and I'll say it again.

This is supposed to be a test of the core rules, and the core rules were supposed to be only those elements all editions have in common. The 4E-only elements (heck, ANY element that doesn't appear in all the editions) have no place in this playtest.


Quote:
This is supposed to be a test of the core rules, and the core rules were supposed to be only those elements all editions have in common. The 4E-only elements (heck, ANY element that doesn't appear in all the editions) have no place in this playtest.

Uh, where was that ever stated? I'm pretty skeptical of this claim.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Conversely, for those of you who like this mechanic, how would you feel if NPCs and monsters had such an ability?

I personally would be find with it, as long as the damage was only a few points. To be honest all the area effects where even if you make a save you take half damage are effectively doing this.

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

And I just discovered a spell I have issue with. Healing Word allows the cleric to whisper a word in the direction of an ally up to 50 feet away, bestowing 1d6 of healing on him, whithout breaking a sweat. The cleric can then attack, cast another spell, etc..

Again, how would you react if the monsters did this?

This is basically modelling a 4e power that works on a Minor action, without the need to introduce the concept of Minor actions - its just something specific to the spell.

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
This on top of Short Rest and Con score + Hit dice for hit points.

Well, I don't believe you get max hitpoints at first level, and you also don't get to add your Con modifier to your HP each level (rather it acts as a minimum HP you get).

So compare a Con 16 d10 class:
D&D Next at 1st level Average HP = 21 (16 Con Score + 5.5 roll, round down)
PF/3.5 at 1st level HP = 13 (+3 Con Mod + 10 max hit die)

D&D Next at 4th level Average HP = 38 (16 Con Score + (5.5 roll x4))
PF/3.5 at 4th level Average HP = 38 ((+3 Con Mod x4) + 10 max hit die + (5.5 roll x3) round down)

D&D Next at 8th level Average HP = 60 (16 Con Score + (5.5 roll x8))
PF/3.5 at 8th level Average HP = 72 ((+3 Con Mod x8) + 10 max hit die + (5.5 roll x7) round down)

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Does WotC think we're DMing six-year-olds, with all the extra hit points and healing these characters have access to?

I must admit I would prefer not to have all HP and Hit Dice be recovered with a Long Rest (I have the same issue with 4e) but I can see that it keeps book keeping simple, and there could well be a module that adds on a Wound Mechanic or something for more gritty game play - at least that is what I am hoping.

Mind you one reason I am not a big fan of PF is the amount of healing Clerical Channelling gives, it really made me feel cheap spamming channels when I played a cleric in a combat light campaign (one fight a day). So its not a problem solely related to D&D Next.


Sorry. Can't find the quote.


Here is a quote about it, but not the quote I was thinking of:

In the article "What Is The Next Dungeons & Dragons?", quoting Mike Mearls, Matt Miller wrote:
We actually went back and played every major edition of D&D and used those experiences to help narrow down the absolute core elements of the game. If you removed those elements, it’s not D&D. Our list includes the six abilities, classes, levels, hit points, Armor Class, and a few other things. In many ways, the list creates the shared language that links the editions.


DigitalMage wrote:

I must admit I would prefer not to have all HP and Hit Dice be recovered with a Long Rest (I have the same issue with 4e) but I can see that it keeps book keeping simple, and there could well be a module that adds on a Wound Mechanic or something for more gritty game play - at least that is what I am hoping.

Mind you one reason I am not a big fan of PF is the amount of healing Clerical Channelling gives, it really made me feel cheap spamming channels when I played a cleric in a combat light campaign (one fight a day). So its not a problem solely related to D&D Next.

I'm going to run it RAW and see how it goes. I kind of feel like there should be a cap on how many Hit Dice and HP a long rest restores to keep an element of danger present, but until I've had a chance to play it more I'll reserve judgment.

Channel Energy in PF has never been too much of an issue for our group. Enemies channeling neg isn't as effective as you might think, especially if they don't have Selective Channeling and your PCs have decent Will saves. I ran the Hergstag encounter from Trial of the Beast last Friday for a group of four, and...

Carrion Crown Pt. 2 Spoiler:
...the cleric had a really tough time deciding between healing her allies and damaging the wraiths, even with (I think) seven daily uses. Everyone had in excess of 3 Con damage by the end of that fight, so just one really nasty brush with the right (or should I say wrong?) creature combo can definitely tax healing resources in Pathfinder.


One point to keep in mind about long rests is that a character who is brought to zero or fewer hit points and then treated only by mundane means will take quite a bit longer than 8 hours to recover. Several hours are required for a stabilized character to heal up to one hit point, and only then can that character begin a long rest.

Now if you have magical healing available or your hit points did not drop below zero, eight hours is all you need -- as it should be.

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That quote doesn't really matter, because at no point have they said that those core elements would be the only ones present in the playtest.

The first playtest round is testing the very basics of the core of the system. That core does not consist only of the things that are common to all the various editions of D&D, but of a number of things that have been chosen by the designers to be implemented as core. As such, you will find some nods to 4e mechanics that have made it into the core of the system.

Had they just gone for things that are consistent with all editions of D&D, we wouldn't even have skills, because they simply didn't exist in certain versions of the game outside of Thief skills. Also, no feats. Even some of the classes would be a bit iffy. There's no Wizard or Fighter class in OD&D (they were called Magic-User and Fighting-Man respectively). Even the Rogue/Thief would be something of a borderline case, because Thieves didn't exist in the very first iteration of D&D, the only classes being Fighting-Man, Magic-User and Cleric.

As far as dealing damage on a miss goes, if you look at the Fighter's character sheet you'll see that the ability is labelled as a feat that comes from their theme. Dealing middling damage on a miss (I mean, the damage is just your ability modifier) is well in line with some of the abilities granted by feats in 3e and 4e. So, not all characters will have that, just characters that picked that particular theme and thus received that one feat to go with it.

Qadira

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

This on top of Short Rest and Con score + Hit dice for hit points.

Does WotC think we're DMing six-year-olds, with all the extra hit points and healing these characters have access to?

Not everyone enjoys a high lethality game. I know from experience that me and most of my friends, whenever we DMed 3e or 3.5, fudged the first couple of adventures in a campaign so that players would survive those first couple of levels without one-hit kills, which were always around the corner. (Thanks, orcs with greataxes!) If the amount of hit points at first level is increased but hit points in general scale at a slower pace, I'm alright: it doesn't change the math of the game at mid-levels, but makes the first couple of levels more tolerable.

Do note also, that the amount of self-healing is limited to your hit dice per day and only if they have a healing kit. So, your 1st level Elf Wizard is only getting 1d4+Con mod hit points back ONCE PER DAY during a short rest if someone in the group happens to be carrying a healing kit.

Personally, I think that getting back to full health with a long rest is okay as long as they also bring back wandering monster checks and random encounters. I hate the idea of groups taking eight-hour naps in dungeons, a phenomena that I attribute to a lot of DMs not knowing how to run organic adventure environments due to the way that most official 3e and 4e adventures did away with random encounters entirely. If they put those rules back in the game, it'll be sure to eliminate the 5-minute workday that plagues 3e and 4e.


Gorbacz wrote:

What's funny is that in 2007/2008 the then-current WotC customer base went ballistic when lack of backcomp was mentioned. The current WotC customer base didn't. So either they're not caring about 5E at all or are actually looking forward to switching. What's funny is how horribly did WotC fumble the edition switch then, as opposed to now.

(I still have that strange feeling it has more to do with the fact that 4E was so poorly adopted by the customer base that everybody is just relieved to see it go and sees 5E as what 4E was supposed to be to begin with, but I'm sure I'll have memorax and Scott running after me with flaming chainsaws for this comment. Sorry, couldn't resist!)

I'm the exact customer your looking for Gorbacz. The one that is looking at where things are going and thinking 'This is not really for me thank you very much'.

I think there are a couple of factors in play here. One most of us have been through an edition war and screaming and yelling does very little. There is also the fact that WotC has gone on and on endlessly about how every style of play will be included. I doubt I will like their version of 4E because I'm not happy with most of the fundamentals I've seen but conversion will likely be a snap once they make the 4E 'module'.

Finally I expect that your just in the wrong place. Why should those that stuck with 3.5 in the form of Pathfinder even care? There really is some screaming and crying from some elements of the community over at the WotC site.

There is also something of a difference in that those of us not planning on adopting have seen the internet at work in this regard. I'll keep an eye on what Rob Heinsoo does with 13th age. I suspect it may well be a vehicle for publishing what amounts to 4E content.

Now I've got all the rules I'll ever need Thank You Very Much but if 13th Age focuses on other content then heck - this might be an improvement. WotCs non rules content was rarely particularly great after all. Maybe the freelancers that work for 13th Age will do a good job?

Finally I'll keep an eye out for wherever the 4E grognard website pops up and probably spend some time there. If its a small group - well I generally like cozy websites.


I agree with Ratpick, the healing is quite moderate; not entirely realistic but much better than healing surges.

I would however like to get at least the average of my first hit die. Having a fighter who starts with 3hp would not be fun although most people will probably just house-rule starting hp anyway.


I don't believe in the 5-minute (or 15-minute)workday in D&D. But that's another argument altogether.

I've been running D&D through all the editions, more than thirty years. I've only had a couple of one-hit kills (both of them high-level). I have had many, many situations where the party had to hole up in a secure place to lick their wounds and regain enough strength to deal with the threats in the world.

I suppose it's a different approach to gaming. But the apparent need for all this extra resistance to danger strikes me as pretty pathetic.

As long as the PCs are willing to see the monsters they face have all the same advantages they have, I guess it isn't a problem, though.

Cheliax

Too many quasi-4e mechanics for my liking.

At first glance it looked real promising, possibly even a true AD&D 3rd edition meets basic D&D fusion, but as I read more I saw too many 4e meh-canics. I think the simplicity may be attractive to some, but this is just a mesh of 3.5 and 4e (any of which would be bad imo). Hopefully they'll drop the integrated 4e mechanics as the test continues but I highly doubt it.

Ah well.


Keep in mind, Aux, this is just a playtest, in an as-yet preliminary stage. I know a lot of people are saying that WotC must have the rules pretty fixed if they're releasing things now, but I think we still have a chance to make our voices heard.

Besides, I haven't found anything I can't fix with a few houserules, not even the over-abundance of 4E.

Qadira

LearnTheRules wrote:

I agree with Ratpick, the healing is quite moderate; not entirely realistic but much better than healing surges.

I would however like to get at least the average of my first hit die. Having a fighter who starts with 3hp would not be fun although most people will probably just house-rule starting hp anyway.

But as written, starting HP are your Constitution Score + hit dice. Sort of a nice draw between 4e and previous editions, in my opinion.

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
I don't believe in the 5-minute (or 15-minute)workday in D&D. But that's another argument altogether.

I understand where you're coming from. The thing is, I've seen it: most of the time we played 3e and 4e, because of a lack of tools, the DM felt unempowered to stop us players from taking a long rest in a dungeon, as stupid as it felt. I think the 5-minute workday has a lot to do with two things: 3e stripping away DM empowerement and the fact that the rules for wandering monsters (which were there in the 3e DMG if I recall correctly) weren't followed by 3e adventure writers.

The thing is, the generation who started playing D&D with 3e (myself included) don't have that good a view of wandering monsters and random encounters, things which were taken for granted by players of previous editions. Because of this, the five-minute workday became a thing, because DMs didn't feel like they had the necessary tools to deal with PCs taking a nap after each encounter.

Which is why I hope that Next does away with it by providing the right tools.

(I'm a vengeful kind of DM these days. I currently run Labyrinth Lord.)

EDIT: Re: one-hit kills.

I don't believe myself to be isolated in saying this, but 3e was really bad with one-hit kills. Even though PCs had a lot more survivability in general, the fact that the measly level 1 orc dealt 1d12+3 damage with their greataxe, triple that on a crit, lead to a number of one-hit kills when we started with 3e. It would've been more if we hadn't learned to start fudging it.

EDIT PART 2: Jerry, I don't think we disagree with each other on too many things. I personally love the fear of death being present. At the same time, death because of a lucky crit from an orc feels cheap to me. This is why I think inflated hit points for 1st level characters is alright (because it alleviates the impact of one-hit kills), as long as the adventure design is clear with the idea that the PCs might always face death if they don't play smart.

The thing is, death because the PCs decided to fight a battle they could not win is one thing, and that's entirely fair, but death because a random mook rolled a 20 on their first attack roll during the first round of combat feels cheap.

1 to 50 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) / My opinion of it without saying much about it. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.