|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, how my heart is a flutter at the memory of Handwavey Mountain. It ranks up there with the other formative games of my mis-spent youth, such as the Vague Corridors of Chaos, The Scribbled Keep on the Bus-Timetable, Dwellers of the Forgotten Module, RavenLost, and The Sinister Secret of Scratchpaper.
Those sound like they must have been AWESOME games! :D
Oh, the fun games of youth in which almost anything could happen and almost anywhere could hold adventure!
d-(^o^)-b
Oh they were great; partly because we didn't know any better!
But think how much more awesome they'd have been, if we hadn't had to waste our time arguing with That Guy, who always 'accidentally' caught the party in his spell effects, or the 'Schroedinger PC', who at any given time, was both nowhere near any trap or area spell, yet was simultaneously right at ground zero, when treasure was mentioned...
How many more adventures could we have got through, if we didn't have to have every room described ten times? That's far more immersive than just drawing the thing once, right?
How many hours did we waste, before we got a clue, and started using some kind of visual representation of the current situation?
It makes me laugh to hear purists declare they never used minis or maps, with such certainty. Even if all you did was draw the approximate shape of the room on scrap paper, and pencil in positions, you were 'using minis and a battlemat'. Even if your PCs' positions were marked with dice (and the guy with the d12 always lost his bearings when he got picked up and rolled for longsword damage vs large creature...). Even if the dragon was a cheap plastic stegosaurus, the PCs were chess men, the kobolds were M&Ms, and the salt and pepper pot were the evil Tyrant King and Queen of Handwavey Mountain.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How many hours did we waste, before we got a clue, and started using some kind of visual representation of the current situation?
It makes me laugh to hear purists declare they never used minis or maps, with such certainty. Even if all you did was draw the approximate shape of the room on scrap paper, and pencil in positions, you were 'using minis and a battlemat'.
lol. Quite True.
Personally, I like visual representation. But I'm not a big fan of visual representation confined to squares.
Its a slightly different complaint, I suppose. I'm Less about being Handwaivey, but paying attention to squares has always made the game less dynamic for me. You get more "I move over there and attack", and less "I jump up and grab the rafters, and monkeybar my way across the room, where the soldiers with swords can't hit me, and I drop down in front of their leader." I hate being told: "You cant move there, you have to end your turn within a single square."
Visuals are great, and so is a scale. Squares would be fine if they are only used to denote distance. As soon as the squares *Matter*, things are too boardgamey for me, like I'm playing tactics ogre instead of an RPG. I dont play D&D/PF for Skirmish Wargaming, I play it for an RPG. If I want to wargame I'll go play Hordes. So if it comes down to having to choose (and it often comes down to it, in terms of player behavior): I'll take Handwaivey over Boardgamey.
So my players don't get battlemats and minis, they get a handdrawn map on paper without a grid, and locations marked by letters. They want to know distances, I can give them estimates, or they can break out a ruler.
I think I'd be cool with minis if the maps had no grids on them. But I'd have to see how the players behave when the map is in front of them.
Why can I only kick dirt in someone's eyes once per encounter? what if the second guy didnt see me do it to the first guy? Dont give me arbitrary rules on how often I can do a mundane trick, apply at least a little bit of common sense. If youre going to limit how often I can do something, have it be for logical reasons.I'm not a big fan of Vancian Casting either, but I'm able to ignore it more because "That's how magic works" is harder to argue with than "you dont know how to kick more than once in a 5 minute period", or what have you.
Once again further illustrating the forcing of our-world physics and interpertations of natural laws for one, yet willfully handwaving the other. But I question why you find is O.K. in previous editions where this instance occurs (because it happens quite frequently) but not ok when 4E does it? Someone else said it better "Why can't I score a critical hit every time I swing? I'm doing exactly the same thing I did 6 seconds ago (1 round) with the same footing, same arm-motion, same grip. That doesn't really add to verisimilitude does it?
Secondly, I hate being given distances in squares. I've hated it since 3.5, but in 3.5 you can ignore the squares and just talk in feet. in pathfinder you can pretty much do the same. In 4e, most of the powers rely on weird square based shenanigans, fireball makes a cube, and other such things, which all make me feel like I'm playing a hasbro wargame based on minecraft.
The entire game revolves around math. And multiplying squares by 5 is hardly worth a concentrated effort. But this goes back to battlemats and miniatures, two tools that have been aiding D&D for over 20 years and I think makine the rules easier to follow this suit is much better than putting everything into feet. By that same token, why not put it into the metric system? I mean, not everyone uses the English version of measurment and would probably get a better feel from the universal form.
There are nearly no rules for things that happen outside combat, and monsters dont have any abilities outside combat other than "just make something up".
This is probably because things outside of combat don't need rules. Do you need rules on how to eat, sleep, or talk to NPCs? No, not in the slightest (which is the same case in previous editions and PF). What I think you mean to say here is "There are no Skills that don't directly involve non-combataive aspects". Again, because these rules are so arbitrary and don't directly effect the games major decisions that such "rules" are loosely followed at best or never used at all.
And while I'm not opposed to having separate rules that could govern these aspects through some other supplement, I don't think they're required to be a Core part of the game.
Too many things in 4e take the approach of boardgamey balance instead of logic. Things can't be used outside their intended purpose wihtout houserules.All the open ended spells (the ones that were interesting) are gone. there are no more demon summoners or necromancers, because you can only summon one dude at a time. Etc. And frankly, while alot of 4e players seem to like that, it's a dealbreaker for me.
All the spells that allow you to control other creatures are gone. Theres the occasional "he cant attack you" or "he hits someone standing next to him" but nothing flavorful along the lines of suggestion, or geas, or charm, or dominate.
And I want those sorts of effects in my games. They make the games interesting, and give me more stuff to do than just combat, and have that more stuff be mechanically supported, instead of just being "story time" where I make some stuff up and the DM approves or disapproves.
Sorry but I find it laugable that your looking for logic in a GAME where elves, magic, devils, planar travel, dragons are all common tropes of said game. Logic.....really? Also, what sort of "board gamey" approaches are you insisting upon BTW? Also, there are Dominate, sugggestions, charms, and the like in the game. Perhaps you haven't found them because you didn't look?
Additionally, there are Demon summoners, necromancers, and the like and they often control multiple creatures in battle. Is it horribly broken like the v3.5 Dread Necromancer with 50+ undead minions at one time? No, because that breaks logic (or whatever).
Un-common races aren't the issue...it's extremely powerful ones. Like Drow Nobles who don't balance to regular elves and Humans. What exactly are you saying in cases like this?
I wouldn't say anything, just point to the Drow race of 4E and the Drow Noble theme from the Neverwinter Campaign Guide and then compare these to say...a Elf or human with equal choices. Yep, balanced pretty well IMO. No Level Adjustment. No ridiculous ability score imbalances. No crazy inherant resistances or game-breaking aspects that put one over other in terms of balance (rule of cool is another factor, however).
Can the same be said of a Drow Noble in pathfinder? Do I get hit with lots of Level Adjustments? Am I on-par with other character of the same level? Am I a broken combo or choice?
And what do you mean by pigenholing races and classes, because there isn't a class that's forbidden to any allowed race... unless the DM has reason to forbid such combinations. such as Night Elf Warlocks for example.Player creativity is going to have restraints.... just as GM creativity is restrained by the needs of versmilitude. IF the GM's freedom isn't absolute, why should yours be?
What I mean by pigeonholing is that in 3E (not as prevailent in PF) races were pre-dispositioned to be a class through ability penalities and favored class rules. Like D&D's past, common tropes were eqpected such as Dwarf fighters, elven wizards, and dumb half-orc barbarian. This, I feel, prohibits player creativity. Why does my half-orc now suck at being a paladin? Why is my elven fighter HP SOO LOW? Why is playing a Halfing barbarian more problematic to play than a human one? This isn't due to game balance, it's due to a perception of "This is how fantasy is, deal with it" mentality.
Also, I'm seeing the word verismilitude being thrown around a lot like it's something to be beholden to or reverent of. It's not because this is a GAME. This isn't something the DM should be constrained to, nor requiring the players to adhere to either. Lets look at something that breaks verisimilitude (action economy). How is it people look at fighter "powers" not being performed more than once per battle/day and say "That's ridiculous!" yet do not bat an eye to a Pathfinder fighter moving 10 feet and being restricted to one attack? Are you claiming it's more realistic to restrict an action to one attack when I know for a fact that a person can move 10 feet and swing his arm in an attacking motion more than once all within 6 seconds. Do people really know how short a distance 10 feet is?
Now, it's perfectly fine to say "well, it's a game and there has to be a balance factor." or "Multiple rules regarding distance and varying attacks would bog down mechanics of the game." but don't hide those under the veil of realism because, frankly, it is far far far from it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well. Alot of your counterarguments didnt make alot of sense.
I cant apply real world physics (or some quick heuristic thereof) to how magic works, because in the real world there is no magic. So best case scenario is the rules for magic are designed to be fair against the non-magic rules.
But the non-magic rules have a higher standard to meet, simply because theyre emulating things that CAN happen in the real world.
And I don't mean "Fighters can't have nice things". I mean the opposite. What sorts of things real people can accomplish, I expect my fantasy characters of a ruleset to also be able to accomplish, as a bare minimum.
"Why can't I score a critical hit every time I swing? I'm doing exactly the same thing I did 6 seconds ago (1 round) with the same footing, same arm-motion, same grip. That doesn't really add to verisimilitude does it?
No it doesn't add to verisimilitude, but short of having 1 second rounds there's not that much that you can do about it. Thats because they abstract rounds to be 6 seconds long, and alot can happen in 6 seconds. You wouldnt have the same footing, arm motion, and grip, even if youre in the same square, just like the other guy wouldnt have the same footing, arm positions, or what have you.
The entire game revolves around math. And multiplying squares by 5 is hardly worth a concentrated effort. But this goes back to battlemats and miniatures, two tools that have been aiding D&D for over 20 years and I think makine the rules easier to follow this suit is much better than putting everything into feet. By that same token, why not put it into the metric system? I mean, not everyone uses the English version of measurment and would probably get a better feel from the universal form.
Why not list both measurement systems if you want to please the metric crowd, or release two versions. That would be fine. I happen to disagree with you about squares. being an improvement over feet.
And in previous versions of the game, the battlemat and squares are there to track distance, the rules didnt have all the abilities that relied on you using squares (shifting, pushing, pulling, by squares, etc) - so you could play using something else. Just maps, no maps, hexes, whatever. This in addition to my previous comment.
This is probably because things outside of combat don't need rules. Do you need rules on how to eat, sleep, or talk to NPCs? No, not in the slightest (which is the same case in previous editions and PF). What I think you mean to say here is "There are no Skills that don't directly involve non-combataive aspects". Again, because these rules are so arbitrary and don't directly effect the games major decisions that such "rules" are loosely followed at best or never used at all.
They come up all the time in my games. Maybe youre just stringing combats together with arbitrary filler in between, but not everyone plays that way. And no, I dont just mean skills, I mean rules in general. Out of Combat Monster-Abilities, for example, being the biggest thing. But yeah. I'm not a big fan of the general lack of noncombat skills either.
And while I'm not opposed to having separate rules that could govern these aspects through some other supplement, I don't think they're required to be a Core part of the game.
And I definitely disagree. In a 4 hour session, we might spend an hour and a half in combat. The rest is a combination of social, and stealth, and all the other stuff you can do besides fighting. Sometimes you run into the enemy wizard and he doesnt attack you. He casts charm, manipulates you into helping him out while he gets away, and you have to chase him down later. Or a Fey puts a Geas on you to solve some problem you caused. Or you know, some other non-combat thing.
Sorry but I find it laugable that your looking for logic in a GAME where elves, magic, devils, planar travel, dragons are all common tropes of said game. Logic.....really?
Yes logic. Not everything needs to match the real world, but if its not at least as believable as a fantasy novel, comic book, or movie, then its not enough of an RPG for me. Star Wars has a sufficient amount of logic, even though its not based on reality. 4e, the mechanics get in the way of that for me.
Also, what sort of "board gamey" approaches are you insisting upon BTW?
Hmm. Well I already mentioned that squares can't be ignored like they can in previous editions; the game is very difficult to play without a square grid. That's one thing. The limited number of times you can perform a mundane action in a combat is another, The fact that all spell effects happen in a square, rectangle, or cube shape is another, and the fact that rounds are still 6 seconds but you can only make a single attack in all that time is another. I'm sure I could find more if I read through the book again.
Also, there are Dominate, sugggestions, charms, and the like in the game. Perhaps you haven't found them because you didn't look?
Additionally, there are Demon summoners, necromancers, and the like and they often control multiple creatures in battle. Is it horribly broken like the v3.5 Dread Necromancer with 50+ undead minions at one time? No, because that breaks logic (or whatever).
I looked. I had a DDI Account for a year while I played in the campaign I tried out like, a year and a half ago. The Creature Control, and Summoning effects, were, well, hard to find, and rather s%~~ty. Also. A necromancer having 50+ undead minions doesnt break logic. Thats ridiculous. It may break game balance, but logically necromancers have undead minions, so the logic holds.
Thats great, you like 4e, and its fun for you. Not everyone else feels the same way. I played in a 4e game for a year. I didnt like it. There are several reasons why, and the things I didn't like about it are things that will also be a dealbreaker for me if they're in 5e. I can always continue buying non-WotC Games, after all. There's still several other RPG Publishers to choose from. And realistically, even if *ALL* the other publishers suddenly go bankrupt, I could just game with the books I already have. I dont exactly have a shortage of RPG Books, and I have them for several different systems.
I cant apply real world physics (or some quick heuristic thereof) to how magic works, because in the real world there is no magic. So best case scenario is the rules for magic are designed to be fair against the non-magic rules.But the non-magic rules have a higher standard to meet, simply because theyre emulating things that CAN happen in the real world.
And I don't mean "Fighters can't have nice things". I mean the opposite. What sorts of things real people can accomplish, I expect my fantasy characters of a ruleset to also be able to accomplish, as a bare minimum.
We apply our real-world physics to the game and expect our characters and the game to be able to function based on those principles. Fighters leaping 40 feet into the air is very unrealistic and thus can't be accomplished (I don't care what the Str mod + Jump ranks are). These characters are restricted to realism. Spellcasters, OTOH, aren't because there is nothing to base their abilities off of. And this is where balance and fairness are thrown out the window. A wizard can cast a spell and "poof" jump 40 ft. in the air and no one bats an eye, because well....it's magic and that's all the resaoning there needs be.
Non-spellcasting classes would be required to horde a plethora of magical items to compete, something that even in the best case scenarios don't happen because these are mandated by the DM, unlike spellcasters who automatically obtain spells via the character advancement rules. There is only balance if the DM makes it so, not the rules. Furthermore, to show no favortism, a DM is often compelled to give magic items to spellcasters as well to keep everyone at the table happy. This scenario creates an arms race for the two.
My point is, you can't expect one that breaks reality with magic while the other can't and still be considered balanced. 4E accomplishes this a few different ways. First is limiting magical items powers. Second is to give non-magical characters more "Umph" in their non-magical ways (ie, attacks that have effects, more damaging strikes, stances that keep them up after being dropped to 0 HP, etc.) and Third is to limit just how powerful wizards spells are. This is achieved by eliminating auto-damage spells (1/2 damage on a save is a joke), spells that render creatures completly powerless (hold persson/monster, Otto's irrestible dance, sleep, etc.), and take a bit out of just what a person can accomplish with specific spells and their loose terminology. The point being, they took instant-win buttons and One-spell ending encounters away from Wizards and other spellcasters in the attempted fairness. This also destoryed the power-curve we saw in previous editions where Fighters were really imporatnat from levels 1 to 8 and Spellcasters from 8-20.
No it doesn't add to verisimilitude, but short of having 1 second rounds there's not that much that you can do about it. Thats because they abstract rounds to be 6 seconds long, and alot can happen in 6 seconds. You wouldnt have the same footing, arm motion, and grip, even if youre in the same square, just like the other guy wouldnt have the same footing, arm positions, or what have you.
Excellent, you just explained why Fighters can only use certain powers once per encounter/day. The only difference is Fighters now determine how/when they're used instead of chancing them on a whim.
Why not list both measurement systems if you want to please the metric crowd, or release two versions. That would be fine. I happen to disagree with you about squares. being an improvement over feet.
And in previous versions of the game, the battlemat and squares are there to track distance, the rules didnt have all the abilities that relied on you using squares (shifting, pushing, pulling, by squares, etc) - so you could play using something else. Just maps, no maps, hexes, whatever. This in addition to my previous comment.
Probably to avoid confusion and to conserve page space. But as for pushing or pulling or other movement based aspects, they're all viable in non-battlemat or non-mini games. A wizard creates a pool of acid around the villian. The villian, while taking damage, escapes. The fighter uses a power and pushs him back in. I don't find that difficult to imagine and as long as DMs and Players aren't finiky about positioning, there's no problem. One aspect = Opportuinity Attacks (or AoO) would need to go. But I don't think that's as much of a problem in 4E than it was in 3.5 where whole builds and feats were based of improving this aspect.
This is probably because things outside of combat don't need rules. Do you need rules on how to eat, sleep, or talk to NPCs? No, not in the slightest (which is the same case in previous editions and PF). What I think you mean to say here is "There are no Skills that don't directly involve non-combataive aspects". Again, because these rules are so arbitrary and don't directly effect the games major decisions that such "rules" are loosely followed at best or never used at all.
They come up all the time in my games. Maybe youre just stringing combats together with arbitrary filler in between, but not everyone plays that way. And no, I dont just mean skills, I mean rules in general. Out of Combat Monster-Abilities, for example, being the biggest thing. But yeah. I'm not a big fan of the general lack of noncombat skills either.
Ok, then I'm missing what sort of non-combative rules your using then. You mention Monster Abilities, but could be more specific? Because as I go through the SRD and PFSRD and most monster abilities are direct attacks on PCs. I don't see Craft (Armorsmithing) or Profession (Baker) in their descriptions.
And while I'm not opposed to having separate rules that could govern these aspects through some other supplement, I don't think they're required to be a Core part of the game.
And I definitely disagree. In a 4 hour session, we might spend an hour and a half in combat. The rest is a combination of social, and stealth, and all the other stuff you can do besides fighting. Sometimes you run into the enemy wizard and he doesnt attack you. He casts charm, manipulates you into helping him out while he gets away, and you have to chase him down later. Or a Fey puts a Geas on you to solve some problem you caused. Or you know, some other non-combat thing.
By definiton of an Enemy Wizard, the spell Charm Person is an attack requiring a successful save against. And most of the stuff you mentioned that doesn't fall into "Roll Initiative" can easily be done as Skill Challenges or just good ol' fashion Role-Playing. Coercing players doens't have to come down to forcing them via magic to do their will. And from the likes of what you say, they'd do so regardless if they succeeded on their saving throw or not, so why the illusion of a chance?
Sorry but I find it laugable that your looking for logic in a GAME where elves, magic, devils, planar travel, dragons are all common tropes of said game. Logic.....really?
Yes logic. Not everything needs to match the real world, but if its not at least as believable as a fantasy novel, comic book, or movie, then its not enough of an RPG for me. Star Wars has a sufficient amount of logic, even though its not based on reality. 4e, the mechanics get in the way of that for me.
Which I can't make sense of. Could I have some examples of how you feel 4E dispoves logic where other editions don't? You could pull, yet again, Martial powers and their usage but I think we've beaten that horse to death now. So how about something different?
Also, what sort of "board gamey" approaches are you insisting upon BTW?
Hmm. Well I already mentioned that squares can't be ignored like they can in previous editions; the game is very difficult to play without a square grid. That's one thing. The limited number of times you can perform a mundane action in a combat is another, The fact that all spell effects happen in a square, rectangle, or cube shape is another, and the fact that rounds are still 6 seconds but you can only make a single attack in all that time is another. I'm sure I could find more if I read through the book again.
Spells have been reduced to "squares" for a long time, previous to 4E. It just mimicked the form of them with terms such as "feet". We've already discussed how it's just as simple to say situations change in combat that restrict actions performed, thus eliminating how 4E martial powers violates verisimilitude. The same logic of the 6-seconds/1-round has been the basis of D&D since...what 2nd Edition (I could be wrong, haven't played in 15 years) but that same instance is applyied to Fighters who move a mere 10 feet are then also restricted to 1 round. The examples you've listed are prevalent in many of D&D iterations, not just 4E alone.
Also, there are Dominate, sugggestions, charms, and the like in the game. Perhaps you haven't found them because you didn't look?Additionally, there are Demon summoners, necromancers, and the like and they often control multiple creatures in battle. Is it horribly broken like the v3.5 Dread Necromancer with 50+ undead minions at one time? No, because that breaks logic (or whatever).
I looked. I had a DDI Account for a year while I played in the campaign I tried out like, a year and a half ago. The Creature Control, and Summoning effects, were, well, hard to find, and rather s+++ty. Also. A necromancer having 50+ undead minions doesnt break logic. Thats ridiculous. It may break game balance, but logically necromancers have undead minions, so the logic holds.
I thought we were tying Logic to Game rules? Oh well. And yes, necromancers, diabolits, summoning evil creatures, flaming birds, imps, quasits, and other such things are very much aspects of 4E that can be used and even exploited. Summoned monsters stick around for quite some time, conjured monsters last for a few rounds or less. It's different, sure, but not excluded from D&D.
Thats great, you like 4e, and its fun for you. Not everyone else feels the same way. I played in a 4e game for a year. I didnt like it. There are several reasons why, and the things I didn't like about it are things that will also be a dealbreaker for me if they're in 5e. I can always continue buying non-WotC Games, after all. There's still several other RPG Publishers to choose from. And realistically, even if *ALL* the other publishers suddenly go bankrupt, I could just game with the books I already have. I dont exactly have a shortage of RPG Books, and I have them for several different systems.
Nor did I say they should have the same beliefes or feelings on D&D and 4E as I do. But this whole topic is about what 5E might do and what we (as the supporting basis) want to see happen to it. Aspects such as hour-long spells with crippling effects, poisons and spells that require me to re-write my character sheet, spells that grant wishes, power curve of classes that put 3/4 of the power into a very few select classes, and nichè character concepts under-evolved or bogged down in rules problems that make them practically unplayable are all aspects of the 5E rules I don't want to see. They're a step backwards in development. Additionally, I want my fighters with choices. Not= Move, attack once. Attack twice with diffrent modifiers. Attack twice with different modifiers. Move, attack once. Use a feat and attack. That repetition is boring and un-imaginative. Sure, I can dress it up however I want but the results are the same. I believe it creates stagnation.
I learned from a Reliable Source (Margaret Weis) that someone by the name of Monte Cook is writing Fifth Edition. You know what I say to that?
*Takes a look at 4th Edition and . . . *
FUS RO DAH!
* blasts 4th Edition off the planet with the Theme for Skyrim playing in the background. *
He's been writing it for a few months now. It really makes sense, all things considered.
He recently moved back to Seattle area from Wisconsin, he's been writing the weekly Lore supplement asking players for their feedback about game design; but the part that makes the *most* sense is that he started working for WoTC again, when they realized "We need another success, like 3E was".
Why can I only kick dirt in someone's eyes once per encounter?
Because encounter and daily powers are narrative elements that do two things: represent an abstract level of the relative rarity of those abilities being used, and to provide you (the player) a degree of narrative and gameplay control over when the opportunities for those abilities' use come into play.
Now you know. You can never again ask "Why can I only kick dirt in someone's eyes once per encounter?"
apply at least a little bit of common sense.
I'm a big fan of people who claim that only their sense is common.
If youre going to limit how often I can do something, have it be for logical reasons.
Just because you don't grasp the logic doesn't mean it isn't there.
I'm not a big fan of Vancian Casting either, but I'm able to ignore it more because "That's how magic works" is harder to argue with than "you dont know how to kick more than once in a 5 minute period", or what have you.
It's not that you don't know how to kick more than once in a 5 minute period. It's that the narrative opportunity for you to do so arises only so often, and you (as the player) have the ability to determine when that is so that your character can take advantage of it.
Secondly, I hate being given distances in squares. I've hated it since 3.5, but in 3.5 you can ignore the squares and just talk in feet. in pathfinder you can pretty much do the same. In 4e, most of the powers rely on weird square based shenanigans, fireball makes a cube, and other such things, which all make me feel like I'm playing a hasbro wargame based on minecraft.
This is a concession to allow you to play without having to worry about fiddly things like spell area templates.
There are nearly no rules for things that happen outside combat,
That is simply false.
Simply.
False.
Why are you here? To senselessly rail against a game you don't play? Does that seem like a good use of your time?
and monsters dont have any abilities outside combat other than "just make something up".
Yes. That's the point. DMs now have the ability to have their NPCs do whatever they feel is appropriate to the story, without having the players scream, "What's he doing? That's not a spell! I want to counterspell! Spellcraft! I use spellcraft!"
Too many things in 4e take the approach of boardgamey balance instead of logic. Things can't be used outside their intended purpose wihtout houserules.
See, you think that this is the case, but it isn't.
All the open ended spells (the ones that were interesting) are gone.
Actually, many of them are still powers, and the ones that aren't are rituals.
I guess you just don't know 4e as well as you think you do.
there are no more demon summoners or necromancers,
That's weird. I've had both a necromancer and a demon summoner in my party in 4e games.
All the spells that allow you to control other creatures are gone.
Nope.
Theres the occasional "he cant attack you" or "he hits someone standing next to him" but nothing flavorful along the lines of suggestion, or geas, or charm, or dominate.
Geas (now called Mark of Justice).
Charm (now called Instant Friends).
Each of these Wizard powers dominates an enemy. And yeah, every one of those words links to a different power.
Now, I fully realize you probably can't see any of the things I'm linking you to, because you don't like 4e so you probably don't play 4e so you probably don't have an Insider account, but that's actually sort of my point (and if you want to call me a liar, plenty of other people here with Insider accounts can follow the links and back me up). You don't really know anything about the game you're tripping over yourself trying to criticize. Which means you probably should refrain from criticizing it, right?
And I want those sorts of effects in my games.
Congrats! You can have them! They're in 4e! Time to party!
They make the games interesting, and give me more stuff to do than just combat, and have that more stuff be mechanically supported, instead of just being "story time" where I make some stuff up and the DM approves or disapproves.
Again, I'm not sure where you learned about 4e or how it's played, but you have some kind of wild notion of the game that doesn't line up with how it actually is.
I want to be able to stat up npcs in 5th ed if it does come out. I quite like the expirence when I am in the mood. Also from what little 4th ed we played combat seemed to lag more than 3ed for some reason at low levels with things having a lot more hit points. In the players handbook 3 the seeker looks cool.
On a potentially related note, there are rumors circulating that a major D&D announcement will take place tomorrow - major enough to receive both CNN and NY Times article coverage.
I'm betting against an announcement of 5e. I don't see the telltale signs yet.
On a potentially related note, there are rumors circulating that a major D&D announcement will take place tomorrow - major enough to receive both CNN and NY Times article coverage.
I'm betting against an announcement of 5e. I don't see the telltale signs yet.
Link?
I want to be able to stat up npcs in 5th ed if it does come out. I quite like the expirence when I am in the mood. Also from what little 4th ed we played combat seemed to lag more than 3ed for some reason at low levels with things having a lot more hit points. In the players handbook 3 the seeker looks cool.
You can stat up NPCs in 4e. NPCs just have different stats than PCs.
There are 75 different powers with the word 'dominated' in the text. Several of those are in the context of 'if you are dominated' or 'even if the ally is dominated', and several more are conditional on the type of the target ("If the target is a devil, it is dominated instead of restrained")
With inexperienced players, the large number of options will cause play to lag. It still sometimes gets into a Nash equilibrium, where everybody is taking the best action in the current circumstance, and the circumstance doesn't change as a result. That gets boring, but doesn't lag, since everyone takes the same action repeatedly until something upsets the equilibrium.
Link?On a potentially related note, there are rumors circulating that a major D&D announcement will take place tomorrow - major enough to receive both CNN and NY Times article coverage.
I'm betting against an announcement of 5e. I don't see the telltale signs yet.
Obviously there's no link to an announcement yet. You can catch up on the rumors flying around in this thread, though. It looks like EN World will report on the announcement at 10 AM EST tomorrow, and there are rumors-within-rumors that one of the major news outlets might even have their story up late this evening. We'll see.
|
|
Why can I only kick dirt in someone's eyes once per encounter?Because encounter and daily powers are narrative elements that do two things: represent an abstract level of the relative rarity of those abilities being used, and to provide you (the player) a degree of narrative and gameplay control over when the opportunities for those abilities' use come into play.
Now you know. You can never again ask "Why can I only kick dirt in someone's eyes once per encounter?"
That makes sense from a purely mechanical standpoint, but I find it breaks verisimilitude for me. I'm not a big fan of action points either, but they're a less direct influence on "narrative and gameplay control" so I find them easier to stomach.
I'm not a big fan of effects that let you control the gameworld outside your own character and his/her cohorts/summons and their actions in other games either.
If youre going to limit how often I can do something, have it be for logical reasons.Just because you don't grasp the logic doesn't mean it isn't there.
Okay, fair enough. I personally dont consider the logic of mechanical balance that gets in the way of verisimilitude of the game any more than absolutely necessary to be good logic for an RPG - I'm not playing it for a tactical wargame, I'm playing it for roleplaying immersion. If I have to choose one or the other, I'll take the verisimilitude, until I come up with a better mechanical idea.
If you disagree with that position thats fine.
It's not that you don't know how to kick more than once in a 5 minute period. It's that the narrative opportunity for you to do so arises only so often, and you (as the player) have the ability to determine when that is so that your character can take advantage of it.
Thats the sort of boardgamey logic (as opposed to logic based on the situation and story elements) that I'm not a big fan of. If the guy is somewhere I have access to dirt to kick in his eyes, and he's not shielding his eyes, I should have the option to attempt to kick dirt in his eyes as many times as I want - even if success is unlikely, or increasingly unlikely if I failed the first time - (as opposed to me being able to choose when the option is possible based on an x/day x/encounter setup). Particularly if it's a different target in the same combat, who didnt see me do it the first time (and won't necessarily be looking out for me to try it again).
This is a concession to allow you to play without having to worry about fiddly things like spell area templates.
I'd rather have the spell area templates.
Why are you here? To senselessly rail against a game you don't play?
Funny. I thought this was a thread to describe what you want to see in a potential 5e. I figured what I *dont* want to see in 5e was fair game.
You don't like 4e so you probably don't play 4e so you probably don't have an Insider account, but that's actually sort of my point (and if you want to call me a liar, plenty of other people here with Insider accounts can follow the links and back me up). You don't really know anything about the game you're tripping over yourself trying to criticize. Which means you probably should refrain from criticizing it, right?
I dont really like 4e. Check. I don't play 4e: Not anymore: Check. I don't have an insider account: Not since I stopped playing 4e: Check (why would I keep paying for an insider account after I stop playing the game). Thats about where I stop agreeing with your reasoning.
That's like saying: "You played 3e for a year or two, decided you didnt like it, and sold your books, to move onto another game. Therefore you cant have any experiences with 3e that you can say you dont want to see in another game, because you can't look them up anymore to make sure you got all the little details right." Once you've sold your books, cancelled your DDI account, whatever, you can't necessarily look up the things you didnt like as easily (obviously) and after a year or two of not playing anymore, you're bound to be a little fuzzy on some of the details of what you didnt like.
It doesn't necessarily follow that you can't have enough of an idea of what you didnt like to say that you dont want to see things like whatever you didnt like in game X, in new upcoming game Y.
I will say, its harder to point to specific rules as examples of what you didnt like, once you've sold the books and cancelled the online accounts, and can't actually look anything up. Your memory tends to be less good for things you didnt enjoy, and haven't read in a long time.
We apply our real-world physics to the game and expect our characters and the game to be able to function based on those principles. Fighters leaping 40 feet into the air is very unrealistic and thus can't be accomplished (I don't care what the Str mod + Jump ranks are). These characters are restricted to realism. Spellcasters, OTOH, aren't because there is nothing to base their abilities off of. And this is where balance and fairness are thrown out the window. A wizard can cast a spell and "poof" jump 40 ft. in the air and no one bats an eye, because well....it's magic and that's all the reasoning there needs be.
Hmm. For a level 15 character, leaping 40 feet into the air is just fine. For a 5th level fighter or lower, yeah, I expect them to be constrained to more realism. By level 15 I'm perfectly okay with the fighter who can punch through marble walls, jump 40 feet in the air, and carve his name in falling lava with a sword without being injured. He's level 15. At level 15 he's the equal of several varieties of grown dragons and other mythical beasts, and can easily dispatch demons with a decent array of supernatural powers. By like, level 14 or 15, I expect him to be rivaling the demigods in greek mythology in terms of what he can do.
By level 20 he's storming the 9 hells, and causing archdevils to have a great deal of irritation. He's walking into Hades to drag his buddies back to the world of the living, and killing all of the outsiders who stand in his way.
I'm not trying to say you should constrain the fighter to "real world expectations" all the way through the game, while not doing the same to the wizard. But if you show me a fighter who can do less than his real-world counterpart, even at high levels, it bugs me. The real world counterpart is what I would consider the minimum, not the maximum.
Non-spellcasting classes would be required to horde a plethora of magical items to compete, something that even in the best case scenarios don't happen because these are mandated by the DM, unlike spellcasters who automatically obtain spells via the character advancement rules. There is only balance if the DM makes it so, not the rules. Furthermore, to show no favortism, a DM is often compelled to give magic items to spellcasters as well to keep everyone at the table happy. This scenario creates an arms race for the two.
And I agree. This is a big problem. Neither type of character should need expensive magic items just to get by - specifically because you can't guarantee you're going to get them.
My point is, you can't expect one that breaks reality with magic while the other can't and still be considered balanced.
4E accomplishes this a few different ways. First is limiting magical items powers. Second is to give non-magical characters more "Umph" in their non-magical ways (ie, attacks that have effects, more damaging strikes, stances that keep them up after being dropped to 0 HP, etc.) and Third is to limit just how powerful wizards spells are.
And in theory I agree with all of that.
I just dont like the implementation. Yeah, the non magic types need more oomph, but you should be able to use that oomph whenever it rationally makes sense (kicking sand in a desert, blinding someone with glare anytime youre in a bright area, different dirty combat tricks whenever the enemy leaves himself open) as opposed to x/day, or x/combat.
I think I'd prefer if the mages used a similar system, but thats more for a sense of symmetry and game balance, and less to meet my expectations based on a bare minimum which can be accomplished in real life - since I cant easily compare it to real life.
This is achieved by eliminating auto-damage spells (1/2 damage on a save is a joke)
I think the 1/2 damage thing is necessary if youre going to make spells such a limited resource. But if you can cast your spells whenever, so long as you succeed in a casting roll, or what have you, then the half damage thing needs to go, I agree. I saw the 1/2 damage thing to be a check against the melee guys. if you can only do 4 useful attacks a day, and your friend can do 50 or more, those 4 need more oomph.
A better design would be to allow you to do your thing just as much, but tone down the power. (4e did this (sortof) but instead of letting wizards magic as much as a fighter fights, and keep both interesting, the fighter now has to manage limited tricks too) - the implementation of that just rubs me the wrong way.
[eliminating] Spells that render creatures completly powerless (hold persson/monster, Otto's irrestible dance, sleep, etc.)
See - I still want to have these, they're mage/druid staples. Just make them less likely to succeed if theyre too powerful. I'll take a more limited chance of success over having them only last a round or two. paralyze, hold person, etc, are good ways to include kidnapping and arrest plots, where you want to subdue the enemy instead of kill him.
and take a bit out of just what a person can accomplish with specific spells and their loose terminology.
And effects like rock to mud, passwall, wall of stone, etc are all other things I end up wanting mages to be able to do with some regularity.
I dont play or run mages to blast stuff with fire, I use them mostly for the creative stuff (open/close on a rigged pit trap, passwall on the side of a tower for a speedy escape, rock to mud to trap or slow down enemies when youre being chased, wall of stone to direct enemies where you want, or give you a ramp to get away faster than you can with stairs, or wall the minotaur into the room he's in so he can't get to you, or to build your base of operations in a few days) or the cool image of a guy who has a horde of imps (or lots of some other really weak monster that its cool to have alot of).
The point being, they took instant-win buttons and One-spell ending encounters away from Wizards and other spellcasters in the attempted fairness. This also destoryed the power-curve we saw in previous editions where Fighters were really imporatnat from levels 1 to 8 and Spellcasters from 8-20.
Yeah, and it does help balance the classes. but it makes the casters feel kindof bland to me. I would have preferred if they had gone the other route, and gave the melee guys more cool tricks to do to keep up. And not nerf the magic types as much.
Pressure point attacks that paralyze or knock out your enemies, the ability to disable limbs, throwing your voice as a distraction, mundane demolitionists, the ability to do crazy movement stunts like the characters in pirates of the caribbean, trick shots to bounce arrows or thrown weapons off of walls to hit people around corners and stuff like that would have all been awesome. Maybe start giving melee characters more supernatural abilities after level 4 or 5 or so. A ranger could summon a flash mob of animals in the wilderness. A fighter might be able to knock out a pillar with a few swings and bring a roof down on someone, or cause cave-ins that block off hallways or parts of a room.
Excellent, you just explained why Fighters can only use certain powers once per encounter/day. The only difference is Fighters now determine how/when they're used instead of chancing them on a whim.
And I get that it works mechanically. But the artificial limit bothers me alot - and I'd have preferred if they had taken a different approach. And something that works mechanically but hinders verisimilitude for me is what I mean when I say boardgamey.
Coercing players doesn't have to come down to forcing them via magic to do their will. And from the likes of what you say, they'd do so regardless if they succeeded on their saving throw or not, so why the illusion of a chance?
No it doesn't, but in a fantasy game, I want the option. And if they pass their saves and decide to kill him instead: thats totally fair, and I'll take the plot in a different direction to accomodate that. It isnt the illusion of chance. If I try something like magical coercion, I'll stand by the dice. I generally prefer to stand by the dice when it comes to persuasion rolls too. If an NPC is trying to convince a player of something, or a player is trying to convince another player of something, and they actually sit down long enough to discuss it, I'd prefer to use the same rules as if a player wants to convince an NPC.
As for the Summons: there are a few, but you can generally only summon one thing at a time, and there aren't very many options. It's hardly the "pick a monster of CR x from the monster manual" that 3.5 basically was, or the pathfinder equivalent. There are alot less summons available.
If there was a large collection of summoning spells you could take, or abilities to summon say 6-12 weak monsters at higher levels (maybe make them minions) it would be pretty cool. I didnt see much like that when I was playing 4e (or I'd have taken it and used it).
Aspects such as hour-long spells with crippling effects, poisons and spells that require me to re-write my character sheet, spells that grant wishes, power curve of classes that put 3/4 of the power into a very few select classes, and nichè character concepts under-evolved or bogged down in rules problems that make them practically unplayable are all aspects of the 5E rules I don't want to see.
Some of those things are definitely not good, for sure, but I want long lasting abilites with crippling effects, and poisons and spells, ailities, and attacks that can kill you. I just dont want them to be locked into a few select classes.
Additionally, I want my fighters with choices. Not= Move, attack once. Attack twice with different modifiers. Attack twice with different modifiers. Move, attack once. Use a feat and attack. That repetition is boring and un-imaginative. Sure, I can dress it up however I want but the results are the same. I believe it creates stagnation.
This I agree with, but I don't like the x/day x/encounter approach 4e took to try to solve it.
I also want to encourage characters to move around on the battlefield, and do cool things with the furniture and environment, instead of standing still and full attacking all the time.
I see the complaints you have about 3.x that 4e 'solved', and I see several of the problems youre talking about, but I'm not a fan of the 'solution' that WotC came up with, and in many cases I would rather put up with the problems than the solution that was chosen.
To me 4e just plays too much like a japanese skirmish wargame (like tactics ogre), and not enough like an RPG. I recognize that Roleplaying grew out of wargaming, but I dont want to RPG as close to wargaming as 4e feels like it does to me, and I'd hope for 5e to take a different approach. Not necessarily the same approach as 3.x, but not the same as approach as 4e either.
Does that make sense?
Thats the sort of boardgamey logic (as opposed to logic based on the situation and story elements) that I'm not a big fan of. If the guy is somewhere I have access to dirt to kick in his eyes, and he's not shielding his eyes, I should have the option to attempt to kick dirt in his eyes as many times as I want - even if success is unlikely, or increasingly unlikely if I failed the first time - (as opposed to me being able to choose when the option is possible based on an x/day x/encounter setup). Particularly if it's a different target in the same combat, who didnt see me do it the first time (and won't necessarily be looking out for me to try it again).
You don't like it. That's fine. But it's time to stop asking things like "Why can't I do this?" when you know perfectly well why not. The designers of the game made a design decision based on a line of thought (and a good one, from my perspective), and that's that. It's not a poorly constructed system with huge gaping holes. It's just a system that doesn't suit you.
I'd rather have the spell area templates.
So I gathered.
Funny. I thought this was a thread to describe what you want to see in a potential 5e. I figured what I *dont* want to see in 5e was fair game.
You're not really talking about what you don't want to see in 5e, though. You're talking about the reasons you hate 4e, and then saying you hope those things aren't in 5e. That's wonderful, but you can do it without bashing 4e. This is made all the more egregious because almost everything you're deriding 4e for isn't even true to begin with.
I dont really like 4e. Check. I don't play 4e: Not anymore: Check. I don't have an insider account: Not since I stopped playing 4e: Check (why would I keep paying for an insider account after I stop playing the game). Thats about where I stop agreeing with your reasoning.
Pity.
That's like saying: "You played 3e for a year or two, decided you didnt like it, and sold your books, to move onto another game. Therefore you cant have any experiences with 3e that you can say you dont want to see in another game, because you can't look them up anymore to make sure you got all the little details right." Once you've sold your books, cancelled your DDI account, whatever, you can't necessarily look up the things you didnt like as easily (obviously) and after a year or two of not playing anymore, you're bound to be a little fuzzy on some of the details of what you didnt like.
So fuzzy that you came up with entirely new things to hate about the game after you stopped playing!
It doesn't necessarily follow that you can't have enough of an idea of what you didnt like to say that you dont want to see things like whatever you didnt like in game X, in new upcoming game Y.
I will say, its harder to point to specific rules as examples of what you didnt like, once you've sold the books and cancelled the online accounts, and can't actually look anything up. Your memory tends to be less good for things you didnt enjoy, and haven't read in a long time.
So maybe focus on something you're more familiar with, like the things that you don't want to see in 5e, rather than imagining that those things you don't like may or may not be in 4e, and just saying, "To heck with it, I hate them so they must be in 4e!"
This thread has, unfortunately, devolved into the same senseless 4e-bashing that turned this subforum into a wasteland to begin with.
|
|
You don't like it. That's fine. But it's time to stop asking things like "Why can't I do this?" when you know perfectly well why not. The designers of the game made a design decision based on a line of thought (and a good one, from my perspective), and that's that. It's not a poorly constructed system with huge gaping holes. It's just a system that doesn't suit you.
It was actually a rhetorical question. I was disagreeing with the line of thought they went with, not actually looking for an an explanation.
But yes. You are correct. The system does what it set out to do. What it set out to do is just a few too many steps away from the sort of game I'm interested in playing.
Funny. I thought this was a thread to describe what you want to see in a potential 5e. I figured what I *dont* want to see in 5e was fair game.
You're not really talking about what you don't want to see in 5e, though. You're talking about the reasons you hate 4e, and then saying you hope those things aren't in 5e. That's wonderful, but you can do it without bashing 4e.
You're right, and thats a fair criticism.
I could have phrased it in such a way as to describe what I don't want to see in 5e without explaining any connections it has to my experiences with 4e. And evidently I got some of the specifics with spells and abilities wrong. As mentioned, I stopped playing a while ago, so fair enough, I mis-remembered some of the facts. Perhaps it would have caused less disagreement, though I imagine most would have seen connections between the things I was saying I don't want to see and how 4e works and inferred the connection themselves. It may have caused the same number of arguments anyways.
I came here because it was a thread about a potential 5e, not because of 4e stuff. Perhaps if I had looked more carefully and seen that it was in the 4e subforum, I would have tried to phrase my posts more diplomatically.
I'd like to see an Edition of D&D where you don't have x/day limits on any abilities (or x/whatever, or any other arbitrary limit on how often an ability can be used). Limit the use by the situations in which the ability can arguably be used instead.
Though for things that require a recharge (and have some reason they *HAVE* to recharge, like recharging a laser, collecting enough spit in your mouth to spit in someone's face again, or what have you), I wouldn't mind having a "recharge time" like dragons breath weapons do in 3e or like many monsters do in 4e.
Perhaps some things might have a charge up time of some kind, but if you have to give up a turn to do the charging, they would have to be worth multiple turns worth of actions.
I'd like to be able to attempt pretty much any stunt that can be performed by 'regular, non-magically enhanced, people' even if I'm very unlikely to succeed.
I'd like the melee characters to have lots of cool options, without them being bogged down by arbitrary frequency limitations.
I'd like a wide array of fairly open-ended abilities, which can have multiple applications, similar to the open-ended spells of 3.x, and I'd like to have similarly open options for the fighters and rangers and paladins and rogues and such.
I'd like to have more interaction with the environment and terrain, not just using it for cover, but things to swing on, ways to bring down support beams and collapse ceilings, and all manner of other ways to interact with the terrain in a variety of environments.
I'd like all characters to be able to perform actions that can quickly disable an opponent instead of killing them, deadly poisons that can kill a character instead of just hindering them, and all sorts of other exciting effects which do many cool things, instead of just whittling away hitpoints. Perhaps even standard attacks could do cool things in addition to hitpoint damage.
|
I finally gave 4e ago BECAUSE it was different than 3e - if 5e looks like either 3e or 4e with a new paint job I'll just keep playing 3e or 4e. No edition has ever made anyone's imagination better or worse - and imagination is the core, for me, of any RPG. 4e showed that WotC weren't afraid to break the mold in the design of D&D. 4e wasn't the first time they did this as 3e was a massive departure from 1e/2e. They made 3e, some liked it and some didn't, they made 4e and ditto - I expect 5e will be the same.
Still worth a look,
S.
Bring back Advanced Dungeons & Dragons or similar core mechanics, may incorporate D20 system into it.
Make the books very atmospheric with great artwork and imagination like the 2nd edition had. Shoot it up with a dose of cleverness, creativity and steroids to spark and inspire the imagination. Make it darker, more dangerous, scary, and adventurous. I remember being in some adventures back in the day that seemed so real I felt scared as if I was in it. As long as the book has some heart/soul and doesn't read like a robot wrote it for a college class I should be somewhat pleased with it. Make it affordable but generous in content.
|
|
AD&D Mechanics are rather clunky. I haven't played it in a very long time, but I still have the core books on my shelf. Recently I made a couple first level characters for kicks.
So long as we don't go back to "lower armor class is better" and add back in the unneeded math steps, I suppose it would work out alright.
But if I want to play 2e, I can always just go play 2e; or one of the retro clones that have near identical mechanics using the OGL. As Stefan mentioned, if its a new game, it can't just be a repeat of whatever you had before, otherwise why bother buying it?
I suppose it would have prettier art and the book might be in better condition. So if you want it for the visuals, fair enough.
But if its pretty much the same as 2e or the same as 3.5e or whatever, then I have to ask "Why am I buying the same book a second time?"
The thing is, I'm expecting a better take on character creation than 4th Edition had. I want the sense of wonder back, like Super Slayer said. In 4th Ed, they put all the wonder in the DMG, but it has to be in the PHB as well.
The PHB was a boring thing to read, but I want better character creation mechanics. Initially, I'd love to be able to make Everyday, Exceptional, and Elite characters. Yeah, and I'd like some inspirational art. Inspirational as in, created by new artists.
Secondly, it's fantasy, so it shouldn't be about historical recreation, but then again it should give an anachronistic look. It would be nice if some of the artists visited a Renaissance Faire or a living museum dating to about 1300 to 1400. And the others looked to what's been done in the past.
Woohoo! So many obsolete threads now.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hesitated to comment on this thread, since I don't play 4th edition, but here goes:
5th is coming and I wish it well. However, I won't be participating. I have an edition I enjoy playing (Pathfinder) and I don't need another one. I hope it does well, for the sake of the hobby and I hope Wizards continues to learn from its competitors' successes. I hope they create a new OGL for this edition, but I feel sorry for the 4e players who, because of a lack of OGL for that edition, have just become orphaned. Still, you've got a lot of stuff to play and if you ever want to try something new, you've now got a choice of D&D5 and Pathfinder.
Saw it comming half a year ago, but I didn't expect an announcement so soon.
One does not need to be apart of the GSL to produce 4th Edition material, just the simple fact of referencing 4E documents during the adventure or what-ever. Open Liscens does it and they're not GSL affiliated. Simple way for 3PP to produce 4E compatable material is to expect people to have 4E material to use, which is simple enough to illegally download from a hundred sites. Not saying one "should" do this, but that option has been soemthing available and shouldn't be discounted.
Aside from that, 4E is still having a decent run. I don't foresee 5E (or whaever crap they're gonna call it) debuting until the summer of 2013, which means another year and a half of material for 4E. That equals to about 5 years in production. Not horrible but not terribly great either. It is what it is, so they say. I just hope it doesn't end up sucking or have horrible horrible aspects that previous editions did. No negative ability scores to start out with, wizards and other spellcasters resorting to mundane weapons, keeping vancian magic to a very limited scope, or fighters being the "dumb" class with no options and a simplistic feature that allowes them to do nothing but move, swing, move swing, move swing.
Basically I don't want 5E to be more like other editions that I already know and play. I don't want to be like Pathfinder and I don't want it to look like 2E (with THAC0 or even BAB).
However, people are very reluctant to buy stuff for a game which they expect to stop playing in the forseeable future.
I don't expect much new stuff for 4th Edition to be announced or released.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Essentials really pleased nobody and alienated pretty much everybody. The fan base that 4E had was alienated because it took a fairly elegant system that did what they wanted and made it into a poor imitation of a system that didn't do what they wanted. The Pathfinder fanbase was alienated because... well, because they'd already been alienated by 4E in the first place.
When the final chapter in 4E is written, the historians will look at Essentials and say, "DON'T DO THIS."
On a potentially related note, there are rumors circulating that a major D&D announcement will take place tomorrow - major enough to receive both CNN and NY Times article coverage.
I'm betting against an announcement of 5e. I don't see the telltale signs yet.
And you would have lost that bet. People have been pointing out the telltale signs for atleast a year now.
Looks like I was right that it was going to be annouced at the last gencon or the next one.
Anyway I am excited and happy to see it is here hopefuly they don't just the same stale community at their site in on the play testing.
Anyway I am excited and happy to see it is here hopefuly they don't just the same stale community at their site in on the play testing.
This sentence no verb? What do you want to say?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tried to post this to another thread, which apparently got locked while I was posting, but I still wanted to say it. So sorry this doesn't directly follow the conversation, but:
And Dungeons & Dragons’ designers are also planning to undertake an exceedingly rare effort for the gaming industry over the next few months: asking hundreds of thousands of fans to tell them how exactly they should reboot the franchise.
Gee, wonder where they got that idea...
Anyway, I'll be curious to see what they do with it. I'm very happy where I am playing Pathfinder, but if 5e is successful and increases the gamer population, then hooray for all of us!
I just hope they don't make the same marketing mistakes they did early on in 4e marketing. I remember feeling very turned off about 4e not because of the game itself, but because of all the preview materials basically saying, "The game you play sucks, and this one is so much cooler." (I specifically remember the word "cool" being bandied about as a reason for why I should be interested in D&D 4. Dude, if I wanted to be cool, I wouldn't be a gamer. ;) But seriously, that's such a weak term to use in lieu of more specific descriptors as to what makes the game interesting...) Maybe it's irrational, but I felt like I was being bullied/playground peer pressured into playing 4E, and being told my current hobby sucks, which just made me feel defensive rather than receptive to a new product.
So I really hope they can pitch 5e by praising its specific merits (not that it's simply "cool," whatever that means) rather than dissing people's current preferences. After all, if the new system is genuinely good and we still like other gaming systems, we can always play both.
And you would have lost that bet.On a potentially related note, there are rumors circulating that a major D&D announcement will take place tomorrow - major enough to receive both CNN and NY Times article coverage.
I'm betting against an announcement of 5e. I don't see the telltale signs yet.
I definitely did.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I definitely did.And you would have lost that bet.On a potentially related note, there are rumors circulating that a major D&D announcement will take place tomorrow - major enough to receive both CNN and NY Times article coverage.
I'm betting against an announcement of 5e. I don't see the telltale signs yet.
Ooo, ooo! Do you have to cosplay as one of the female Pathfinder iconics at GenCon now? Or name your firstborn ErikMona? Or compose an 'Ode to the Many Deaths of Regdar'?
;)
They said exeedingly rare. Which implies it has been more common once than it is now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ooo, ooo! Do you have to cosplay as one of the female Pathfinder iconics at GenCon now?
As if I'd need to lose a bet to do that. Pff.
|
I definitely did.And you would have lost that bet.On a potentially related note, there are rumors circulating that a major D&D announcement will take place tomorrow - major enough to receive both CNN and NY Times article coverage.
I'm betting against an announcement of 5e. I don't see the telltale signs yet.
Ooo, ooo! Do you have to cosplay as one of the female Pathfinder iconics at GenCon now? Or name your firstborn ErikMona? Or compose an 'Ode to the Many Deaths of Regdar'?
;)
Play a game of Pathfinder, smiling all the time.
Play a game of Pathfinder, smiling all the time.I definitely did.And you would have lost that bet.On a potentially related note, there are rumors circulating that a major D&D announcement will take place tomorrow - major enough to receive both CNN and NY Times article coverage.
I'm betting against an announcement of 5e. I don't see the telltale signs yet.
Ooo, ooo! Do you have to cosplay as one of the female Pathfinder iconics at GenCon now? Or name your firstborn ErikMona? Or compose an 'Ode to the Many Deaths of Regdar'?
;)
Actually, my friend hasn't run his Pathfinder game for a few weeks now, and I'm starting to get the shakes.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm betting against an announcement of 5e. I don't see the telltale signs yet.
Gotta ask, what's a tell-tale sign for you? A burning bush? :)
Emptying the product pipeline. A year-long series of articles oriented around what a new edition might look like. Hiring Monte Cook.
Did they need to send you invitations to deliver the message? :P
Actually, my friend hasn't run his Pathfinder game for a few weeks now, and I'm starting to get the shakes.
Play a game of Pathfinder, smiling all the time.
Scott's a great gamer. He may prefer to GM in 4E, but he'll play just about any game. I'm sure he'd come over for Swords and Wizardry if I asked him to. ;)
Hot off the backs of under-paid chinese laborers!
Show the world how you feel!
I'm betting against an announcement of 5e. I don't see the telltale signs yet.Gotta ask, what's a tell-tale sign for you? A burning bush? :)
Emptying the product pipeline. A year-long series of articles oriented around what a new edition might look like. Hiring Monte Cook.
Did they need to send you invitations to deliver the message? :P
I was actually watching out for a major staff increase. Perhaps that will be coming later on in the process, but in previous edition development we've seen an easy doubling of the sizes of the R&D and editing teams in the D&D department. Stan! and Monte just didn't seem like enough by themselves, especially since the D&D team has lost more than that in the last year. I think it may just be that because they're going to be so focused on open playtesting input that they've announced the game much earlier in the design process than they otherwise would have (note that they don't even have a name for it yet).
Not everybody likes miniatures....
Whole heartedly agree. I hate'em. I never once used mini's until 3E. 3E made them a necessity with the 6 second combat round, flanking mechanics, the annoying 5-feet step, distances described in feet instead of yards...essentially a combat system designed to track more of the small crap. 2E, the edition in which I began, combat was one minute rounds, distances were tracked in yards, no need for actions described as standard-move-swift, a far less involved combat system.
In 2E, combats I ran averaged 10 to 15 rounds, and took about an hour of session time. IN d20/3E, a 10 - 15 round combat is rare to the point of being well-nigh non-existence, 5 to 7 being pretty standard, and lasting 90 minutes or more of session time.
I'd like to see a system that discourages the crap I've seen a lot of late: player's TELLING the GM 'that's not how it works' or 'No, you give me a DC, I grab a d20 and roll' and other rules lawyering crap. Quite frankly, the frustratingly tactical - chess-like combat system of both d20/3E and 4E I'd like to see obliterated in favor of a more fluid, cinematic combat system. Also, instead of hard DCs with a +/-2 situational modifier, go back to the generalized descriptiuons for skills the way proficiencies used to be defined and leave it up to the GM to say, well due to x, y, and z it's a Hard DC...and port in the scaling DCs from 4E.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see a system that discourages the crap I've seen a lot of late: player's TELLING the GM 'that's not how it works' or 'No, you give me a DC, I grab a d20 and roll'
I've played in games with otherwise great DMs which would have been largely intolerable were it not for the fact that enough of the players knew enough of the rules to be able to pull stuff like the above.
Chipping away at the traditional narrative monopoly of the DM is one of the great accomplishments of 4e, and the rules structure you're decrying is one of the support systems that allowed that to happen.
I remember the first time I read through the Deadly Trickster epic destiny and came across its capstone ability to tell the DM to treat the result of a roll as a 1. The idea of a player being granted just that slightest bit of power over the DM was sort of breathtaking. And I'm speaking as a DM here - I thought, "Man, I can't wait to see what sort of situation the players will decide is worth using that ability on!"
But didn't the one minute round consist of 10 turns? I let you do the math how long that is for each round.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely did.And you would have lost that bet.On a potentially related note, there are rumors circulating that a major D&D announcement will take place tomorrow - major enough to receive both CNN and NY Times article coverage.
I'm betting against an announcement of 5e. I don't see the telltale signs yet.
Scott,
You and I don't agree on a lot of things, but I will applaud your admitting you're wrong. There's not enough of that on the internet. (people admitting they're wrong, not Scott admitting he's wrong)