5thE D&D playtest


4th Edition

101 to 139 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Duncan & Dragons wrote:
The creation of 4e gave people who had limited time/resources a choice between PFRPG or 4e. (I am assuming here that everyone knows PFRPG was created just to keep Paizo alive.) People did not really 'switch to PFRPG, they just stayed with 3.5.

Whilst I think that was true for the initial takeup, PF has been steadily growing (at least judged by the fact that the CRB keeps getting new printings and the other rulebooks are heading into their second or third printings). I think the later takeup is probably partly explained by people switching (especially given the decline of D&D's ranking in the ICv2 surveys of hobby store venues and their reports of relative sales). I think it is no doubt also partly explained by some people now switching from 3.5 to pathfinder.

Liberty's Edge

My group and I just finished the 5e playtest stuff. Average mark 'A'. The game reminded us we play RPG's for fun, the update of the Gygax adventure to 5e rules (as they are) was well done provided a very fun few evenings. This was (partially) the same group who after one session of 4e when it came out said "no freak'n way" to playing 4e ever again - and we didn't. So on that 5e looks like a win so far for me and my group - hope they don't bugger it up.

S.


Gorbacz wrote:
I'm bloody curious if 5E's default cosmology will be "Elemental Chaos and Feyshadowdoomdarks with Shadarkai Shrikestar Shadowslashers" or Great Wheel with Modrons. That will speak *voulmes* about who are the creators after.

Part of me is curious as well, the rest says who cares. Even back then I was working to simplifying my cosmos much like Pathfinder did. I just plucked the best ideas from 4E, which weren't many, to flesh out the details.

I just really need the Blood War. It's to good of a backdrop for quality lower planar adventures to ignore.


Set wrote:
Manors and Minotaurs!

I like that one!


I've looked through the How-To rules and the Pre-gen characters and while I'm interesting in trying them out, I don't know how they'll work with my group. I plan on doing the Caves of Chaos tomorrow night (at least, start the thing and get a few battle in) and get people's feedback. There are two things that people are saying about the Playtest that I find really confusing:

  • "This is going back to 3.X days and not so much of the 4E-blah mechanics."
  • Really? I've found well over half a dozen 4E 'fueled' mechanics in the game. I've yet to see anything remotely akin to 3E, at least not yet anyways. The spell progression sorta works like pre-4E but that's covering a LOT of other materials aside from 3E. The Fighter is "meh" which I think is the one major aspect that has some roots in 3E. But no definite Skills (or even skill points), no Feats (yet?), no BAB or 3 Derived saving throws. So what about DDN is going back to 3E?

  • "The Fighter is back to where he sould be, without all the crazy shennanigans and magic-y powers they forced on us." (ie. no more daily powers that can't be explained via simulationism)
  • This is actually pretty hypocritical. I really want to see some outrage over the Fighter getting the ability to take multiple action on his turn, but only 2/day. How does that keep in-line with verisimilitude vs. a 4E daily power (of any level)? If people are going to complain about something, they might as well remain consistant about it.

    Aside from those two points, I think this could be a fun game. Probably won't supplant 4E as my favorite system but it'll be fun for a few quick One-Shots so far.

    Grand Lodge

    I didn't shift my loyalty from D&D to Pathfinder. I switched from Hasbro (which never earned my loyalty, they just inherited it when they bought WotC) to Paizo. Why? Paizo kept making the kind of game I won't to play, and they did so in a much more player-friendly way than Hasbro did.

    The 5E play test materials look "OK," but not great. It's definitely an improvement over 4E, and it looks like it will feel much more like D&D when you're playing. But I get that feel with Pathfinder, plus I get to support a company that has shown a respect for thier customers that Hasbro clearly does not share.

    I won't be buying 5E. The people that earned my loyalty when they bought TSR and saved D&D from the trash bin of failed businesses are no longer at WotC, and haven't been for years. They're running Gen Con, Paizo, and Goblinworks. These *people* have earned my loyalty and as long as I'm playing these games I'll continue to support their businesses.


    Diffan wrote:


    Really? I've found well over half a dozen 4E 'fueled' mechanics in the game. I've yet to see anything remotely akin to 3E, at least not yet anyways. The spell progression sorta works like pre-4E but that's covering a LOT of other materials aside from 3E. The Fighter is "meh" which I think is the one major aspect that has some roots in 3E. But no definite Skills (or even skill points), no Feats (yet?), no BAB or 3 Derived saving throws. So what about DDN is going back to 3E?

    I don't really care much for verisimilitude, as you're playing a game where people can summon monsters to cast lightning bolts at a murderous gelatinous cube, but YMMV.

    Regardless, I want to point out that there are feats, we just don't know how they really work yet. Each character has a feat that's given to him by his theme at level 1 afawk.

    I think the 3e stuff stems from people rolling their own saves rather than having static values, but apart from that, I agree, I haven't seen a lot that's too much 3e influenced besides wizard/sorcerer spellcasting.


    Adamantine Dragon wrote:
    wraithstrike wrote:

    I applied for the playtest. I will look over it(the rules) later. I am curious as to how many or which things are rules, and what is left to the GM.

    Wraith, I already have the materials. One of the things I am seeing is many people are acting as if the materials of the playtest are the full game and are not realizing that Wizards intends to expand the game with modules. Just keep that in mind as you go through the materials.

    I would love to get your opinion on the "Advantage/Disadvantage" mechanic...

    I just got home, and downloaded it. Luckily the first thing I opened had the advantage/disadvantage mechanic in it. I don't like it, and I see no point to it as a common thing. It should be a special ability. Maybe some monster who knows how to manipulate his fate and/or other people's fate would have been nice to give it to.

    With that aside I think they are putting out small portions of the game at a time so as to not overwhelm people. I just wish it had all been in one document. It also allows them to work on that part of the game.

    I will have to read the other documents later. I will comment on them here after I do so.


    Wraithstrike, perhaps its the cynic I ate for breakfast this morning but, I think they are handing out tiny peices to keep control rather than to not overwhelm people.

    - Gauss


    I like advantage mechanic but rolling two dice and picking lower is very hard hitting when attempting an action. I'd prefer some other solution to disadvantage (regular -2 penalty perhaps).


    I think the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic is an interesting concept. The fact that I have disadvantage when I try to sneak in heavy armor is more uplifting than taking a -8 penalty to my roll (so why bother?). It's also a great way for Rogues to use their class features more often. He'll still need to obtain Advantage, but with the non-existance of codifying this aspect, getting it might mean more player lee-way than denied Dex to AC or Flanking.

    It sorta has it's roots in "Combat Advantage" but is easier to follow and record since it's not an actual math upgrade or bonus you have to track. But the bad side is it's a bit TOO simplistic. Mainly the part where you can't have multiple factors of Advantage and that Disadvantage cancles everything else out. So for example, a Fighter is hitting a foe who is flanked by his Rogue buddy AND the foe is prone (giving 2 distinct reasons for Advantage) but the Fighter is blinded by a spell (giving him Disadvantage) then everything is negated. I just don't like that as it doesn't reward any synergy with the surroundings or your fellow PCs.


    Borthos Brewhammer wrote:
    I think the 3e stuff stems from people rolling their own saves rather than having static values, but apart from that, I agree, I haven't seen a lot that's too much 3e influenced besides wizard/sorcerer spellcasting.

    That wasnt a 3.5 thing was it? I'm sure we rolled saving throws for characters when theyd been attacked by some "special power" back in AD&D.

    Grand Lodge

    Steve Geddes wrote:
    Borthos Brewhammer wrote:
    I think the 3e stuff stems from people rolling their own saves rather than having static values, but apart from that, I agree, I haven't seen a lot that's too much 3e influenced besides wizard/sorcerer spellcasting.
    That wasnt a 3.5 thing was it? I'm sure we rolled saving throws for characters when theyd been attacked by some "special power" back in AD&D.

    That goes back to the original Red Box Basic set, if not earlier.

    Grand Lodge

    Borthos Brewhammer wrote:
    I don't really care much for verisimilitude, as you're playing a game where people can summon monsters to cast lightning bolts at a murderous gelatinous cube, but YMMV.

    Verisimilitude when concerning RPGs, is keeping internal consistency within the setting; making it believable on its own terms (to quote Wikipedia)...

    So yeah, it's a game of the fantastic, but those casting lightning bolts as well as those murderous gelatinous cubes remain believable through a suspension of disbelief (because of verisimilitude)...


    From everything I remember, saving throws were a static value rolled by the player up until 3E.

    I'm curious about advantage/disadvantage but will have to experience it a bit more to have a real opinion. Like the feel of a max damage crit. Kind of nice to see one value for AC, I'd forgotten how that felt.

    Really, I can't say more than that till we see more crunch, but looks good so far.

    Liberty's Edge

    Drejk wrote:
    I like advantage mechanic but rolling two dice and picking lower is very hard hitting when attempting an action. I'd prefer some other solution to disadvantage (regular -2 penalty perhaps).

    This mechanic was used in Blue Planet V2 (Fantasy Flight Fames) and works surprising well, far better than adding more modifiers to keep track of. Once you see it in action going back to + this and - that seems a primitive mechanics to show advantage or disadvantage.

    Liberty's Edge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Diffan wrote:
    But the bad side is it's a bit TOO simplistic. Mainly the part where you can't have multiple factors of Advantage and that Disadvantage cancles everything else out.

    I agree that it might be a bit too simplistic in that mutiple factors don't stack, however as I read it a single Disadvantage doesn't cancel out every Advantage, rather if you have more Advantages than Disadvantages you have Advantage, and vice versa.

    I think this is one thing WotC really needs to clarify.


    I must agree with earlier mentioned arguments that WotC is not pulling out the whole "game" here.

    For me it looks like they are testing the "core" of the system. To see if it works

    Feats, skills and other such things are tweaking that can be done when the core of the system is in place. Might just be me but I think that is a very important notion when trying to analyse the playtest.

    After a closer look at the playtest and the comments on the thread I am curious what made the game flow faster? In my own experience 3.X/Pf and 4E where almost equally fast, at my table. So what makes it faster? Is it simplicity?

    About the (dis)advantage. Although not explained could it be argued that with 2 advantages and one disadvantage you would still end up with an advantage? An other points that Diffan mentioned was the fact that you cannot progress in your advantage. So you cannot get better and still rely on luck in some regard. Although with a bigger chance of succes.


    Gauss wrote:

    Wraithstrike, perhaps its the cynic I ate for breakfast this morning but, I think they are handing out tiny peices to keep control rather than to not overwhelm people.

    - Gauss

    They know* most gamers are at least of average intelligence and giving them parts of the information at a time only makes it easier to break down. If I wanted to confuse someone I would give them everything at once. :)

    Then again they have done other things that have surprised me, and not in a good way, but those are for other threads.

    *Well they should know. :)


    Gendo wrote:


    3E/d20/PF has hit an annoyingly disgusting level of feats, classes, and PC races. There is such a thing as TOO MANY options/rules as well as not enough.

    There's...really not. You always have the option of just not using some if you think there's too many.


    DarthEnder wrote:
    Gendo wrote:


    3E/d20/PF has hit an annoyingly disgusting level of feats, classes, and PC races. There is such a thing as TOO MANY options/rules as well as not enough.
    There's...really not. You always have the option of just not using some if you think there's too many.

    No, I agree with Gendo here. Increasing complexity and options isn't always good.

    Sure you can go through and pick which things are allowed in a given game, but that's a major undertaking in itself. You can just not go beyond a subset of core books, but that's frustrating if there are some things you want from them. Perhaps, for example, you want the classes from the APG and the feats, spells and other things to support them, but not new feats for the old classes.

    Picking and choosing, even by sourcebook, also makes resources like the pfsrd more frustrating to use.


    DarthEnder wrote:
    Gendo wrote:


    3E/d20/PF has hit an annoyingly disgusting level of feats, classes, and PC races. There is such a thing as TOO MANY options/rules as well as not enough.
    There's...really not. You always have the option of just not using some if you think there's too many.

    I disagree; there is such a thing as too many options.

    To a great extent, you need to analyze and understand most of the information in order to choose what to use or what not to use. Arbitrary removal of options usually lead to player dissension.

    The level of complexity of a game (which includes character options) does have an influence on the experience of the game (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worst).

    'findel


    Laurefindel wrote:
    Set wrote:
    Manors and Minotaurs!

    I prefer "Trolls and Trollops"

    I really like pathfinder but quite honestly some of the new classes just seem plain silly to me...esp. Gunslingers and Alchemists...just don't like the flavor or mechanics of either class. I do like the Magus however.
    We'll be starting a new campaign soon set in Golarion and I've been lobbying our GM to fiat out firearms...they're broken in my opinion... the whole ignore armor at 1st range band is just way too powerful.
    "OK you peasants...wait till the dragon is point blank and then volley fire him to bloody shards".
    Just my opinion


    Laurefindel wrote:
    DarthEnder wrote:
    Gendo wrote:


    3E/d20/PF has hit an annoyingly disgusting level of feats, classes, and PC races. There is such a thing as TOO MANY options/rules as well as not enough.
    There's...really not. You always have the option of just not using some if you think there's too many.

    I disagree; there is such a thing as too many options.

    To a great extent, you need to analyze and understand most of the information in order to choose what to use or what not to use. Arbitrary removal of options usually lead to player dissension.

    The level of complexity of a game (which includes character options) does have an influence on the experience of the game (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worst).

    'findel

    Options are great, so long as the DM is ok with a lot of options. I've known DMs that just want Core. Or don't allow such-and-such product. It's ok for them to say this, but it should be something the DM does and the group agrees on. For example, I had a DM that didn't want ANY Tome of Battle stuff to go on in his campaign. SInce I didn't want to argue with his ridiculous notions of "ZOMG, SOO OVER POWERED" I just went along with it. But I also make sure I inform the DM what I plan to do with my character. I rarely let events in the campaign effect how I'm going to "build" my character (regardless of Edition) so that makes it easier on my DM to know what to expect.

    The Exchange

    I'm personally on the side of having as few options as possible and presenting them in such a way that you get a package of stuff instead of having to shop for everything separately. For an example, 3e character creation occasionally feels like a hassle because there are so many different feats and skills to choose from. Too many options lead to analysis paralysis on the part of players and when there are lots of options in play the DM also has more material to keep track of, just to see how it interacts with their game.

    Not surprisingly, my favourite character creation method is "Roll 3d6 in order, pick a class that best fits with what you rolled, make some minor adjustments based on class, here's 3d8x10 gp, go crazy."

    That said, they seem to have streamlined character creation in Next down to an acceptable level of complexity for me: choose race, choose class, pick a background which gives you skills, pick a theme which gives you feats. The degrees of complexity are the same as in 3e and 4e (Race/Class/Class Features/Skills/Feats), but they've streamlined picking skills and feats into a simple process of "Pick one of these neat packages."


    there should be a create your own package option.


    Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
    there should be a create your own package option.

    They've mentioned that the packages aspect is just for someone who doesn't want the hassle of going through endless books of options. It can get a bit overwhelming (it's why I use Char_Ops boards, personally). If you like a Theme, you can run with it and have most of the options picked out for you that fits that flavor.

    But they're also going to have an ala-carté style as well, for those who really like to pick and choose how they want their character to be. Most likely I'll be using this method for character creation, and probably Point Buy for the Ability scores. Since SO much is based off them, it's silly (I find) to make them randomized. But people like swingy aspects and the game should cater to them as well.


    Diffan wrote:
    For example, I had a DM that didn't want ANY Tome of Battle stuff to go on in his campaign. SInce I didn't want to argue with his ridiculous notions of "ZOMG, SOO OVER POWERED" I just went along with it.

    I don't know what I'd do without the Tome of Battle. It's like my favorite sourcebook.


    DarthEnder wrote:
    Diffan wrote:
    For example, I had a DM that didn't want ANY Tome of Battle stuff to go on in his campaign. SInce I didn't want to argue with his ridiculous notions of "ZOMG, SOO OVER POWERED" I just went along with it.
    I don't know what I'd do without the Tome of Battle. It's like my favorite sourcebook.

    I was annoyed, to say the least. Instead I played a Charing Smite Paladin, Valorous Sword, Rhino's Rush spell, some Complete Champion shennannigans and did some impressive damage a few times per day. Not the same, but when your dropping monstes 3-4 CR higher than you with 1 attack, it really opens the DM's eyes. Suffice to say, he went with more "non-evil" combatants.

    Liberty's Edge

    Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

    It's kinda sad when intellectual property you kinda wished was available for further utilization is sitting in some sort of closet gathering dust.

    OWW! KYRAS.......INSIDE MY......MIND......

    This is why copyright laws need to go back to being just 40 years with periodic re-registration. Its too easy for company's to stuff intellectual property into a closet because it's not making enough money, but they are too greedy to release it to the fans who deserve to "own" it.

    Most people don't realize that all works of art are owned by the public. Copyrights are designed as an incentive by giving the creators of the arts a limited monopoly on which to monetize what they created without having someone else redistributing it.

    Unfortunately in most cases the entertainment industry has become a corrupt mockery of this original purpose. Most artists are forced to sell their rights and be poorly compensated by the publisher for a small chance to be one of the privileged few who make a huge some of money and fame.

    We can thank the Gods that Paizo hasn't walked down this dark path, but a lot of older companies have.

    Contributor

    Gorbacz wrote:
    I still wish Paizo bought Planescape, mixed it with The Great Beyond and chained Todd Stewart to a desk and have him writie planar hardcovers. Oh one can dream...

    I can dream about it too :D

    I'd love to be able to contribute to a Planescape hardcover, but I don't have a clue what WotC intends with its cosmology for 5e, and even if I'd be on their freelancer radar. I've only worked on one project for them (yet to be released, 'prolly August), but I'd certainly be more than ecstatic to do something planes related - especially if it was classical Planescape.

    That said, I adore Pathfinder's cosmology, and I'd be equally thrilled to do more planes-related stuff on that front as well. I've got gobs of ideas I'd love to explore and in turn see other folks riff on in later years.

    I really am absolutely willing to commit planar adultary in order to get to work on that sort of stuff. I loves it all. ;)

    Shadow Lodge

    Steve Geddes wrote:


    I think the later takeup is probably partly explained by people switching (especially given the decline of D&D's ranking in the ICv2 surveys of hobby store venues and their reports of relative sales).

    Again, I'm going to voice the opinion that D&D's declining ranking in the ICv2 survey may very well be due to the fact that their non-DDI output has slowed to a rather plodding crawl, rather then them actually losing players to Pathfinder.


    Kthulhu wrote:
    Steve Geddes wrote:


    I think the later takeup is probably partly explained by people switching (especially given the decline of D&D's ranking in the ICv2 surveys of hobby store venues and their reports of relative sales).
    Again, I'm going to voice the opinion that D&D's declining ranking in the ICv2 survey may very well be due to the fact that their non-DDI output has slowed to a rather plodding crawl, rather then them actually losing players to Pathfinder.

    That still represents a fairly significant loss of players if I had to guess. Declining sales in hobby stores almost certainly means a lessened presence overall in hobby stores, and that means less new players generated from those stores, which I suspect are still one of the primary sources for securing and sustaining fresh interest. The internet is great once you have the players hooked, but without something to hook them in the first place, the quality of the internet functions becomes moot.


    Encounters and the new lair assault has (apparently) been going great guns.


    Kthulhu wrote:
    Steve Geddes wrote:


    I think the later takeup is probably partly explained by people switching (especially given the decline of D&D's ranking in the ICv2 surveys of hobby store venues and their reports of relative sales).
    Again, I'm going to voice the opinion that D&D's declining ranking in the ICv2 survey may very well be due to the fact that their non-DDI output has slowed to a rather plodding crawl, rather then them actually losing players to Pathfinder.

    I think you're probably right that that is a factor. However, I think the decline in market share is real (even if often overstated).

    Shadow Lodge

    Oh, I'm not denying that they've probably lost a few customers. But the importance of the ICv2 survay is pretty minimal, since the quarters that it shows D&D in the biggest decline are, not coincidentally, the quarters in which it has barely published anything.


    DarthEnder wrote:
    Gendo wrote:


    3E/d20/PF has hit an annoyingly disgusting level of feats, classes, and PC races. There is such a thing as TOO MANY options/rules as well as not enough.
    There's...really not. You always have the option of just not using some if you think there's too many.
    True, the option exists to not use what's presented. Also it seems that as more options are added, not enough consideration is given to the interplay of various feats, spells, and abilities. This lends itself to support some amazingly powerful combinations that allow for, as another individual posted above -
    Quote:
    when your dropping monstes 3-4 CR higher than you with 1 attack

    . Other combo's exist for equally amazing displays of arguably game breaking feats. If it works for your games and your players are having fun, great. For me as a GM, it supposrts a pespective that it is well-nigh impossible to create a truly challenging encounter without creating a bizarre 'ARMS RACE' and falling into a GM vs Player build contest.

    Running a Star Wars Saga game, where I cherry picked material for use in the game from many of the sourcebooks if not all, lead to a character, through a combination of feats and talents to be able to make a Full Attack as a Standard Action rather thana full round action while fighting with two weapons with minimal penalty to attacks.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    DarthEnder wrote:
    You always have the option of just not using some if you think there's too many.

    I like options, but there can be too many.

    The problem with lots of options is that it slows down character creation immensely, especially if those options are in multiple books.


    My group played the beta version and loved it.

    We all had comments that were routed back to Mike and gang, but overall it is good.

    I saw somewhere on the board a post saying it looked like a cross between 3.x & 4, but it felt more like a blend of 4 & AD&D (in a good way) to my group. (4 has some 3.x in it.)

    We played in a well developed campaign world, zhalindor.com/4e/ , and that helped focus on game mechanics.

    In service,

    Rich

    Www.drgames.org

    101 to 139 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 5thE D&D playtest All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.
    Recent threads in 4th Edition