| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you'll be waiting a long, long time for paizo to make a 4e pathfinder product...
Scourge of the Sword Coast doesn't have stats for any system but Next, from what I've seen. The previous two Sundering adventures were systemless, with encounters in bolded text, so you knew what to look up when you downloaded the packet for your system of choice, whereas the most recent is sold with DDN stats right there in the book (well, pdf). I don't mean to quibble with you, I just think the first two were an effort to hook players of all three systems on the Sundering's story before switching to DDN only stats (D&D: Switcheroo)
I kind of doubt that WotC is going to produce three (or more) sets of of the same encounters for every adventure they publish; it just seems inefficient from a cost/profit perspective. On the other hand, I would absolutely love to live in a world where any D&D system could get published in Dungeon (D&D: Whichever), and think WotC could make beaucoup monies from a pdf that allowed conversion between the various additions (D&D: Rosetta).
I had figured they would have waited a bit longer when Murder and Baldur's Gate and Legacy of the Crystal Shard rolled out. Official launch isn't till August, so this felt like a sudden bait and switch, but no matter. You'd think since they sell the new stuff on RPGNow, you've have some extra conversions in the bundle too. As an Encounters DM,I'm kinda concerned because a whole 2 tables vanished after the store owner announced DDN only. Well, there went the 3.5 and 4.0/Essentials players...
I wish they continued multi-edition at least until the last adventure (which I believe would end somewhere around GenCon?) It seems easy enough to convert to 3rd edition, at least. I presume you could even reverse engineer it to 4th edition as well (without completely building from ground up). And even if it wasn't WPN approved, those players can use that "Sundering" app to change how the Realms will look (regardless of the rule set they use).
Personally, I've enjoyed DDN so far (despite the frustration I've had with the system too.) It reminds me of AD&D (and sort of 3rd Ed) without the things I hated most about AD&D's (and 3rd Ed's) many oddities. I just hope that it attracts enough of a new crowd. Since play is relatively simple (kinda) and the math isn't too crunchy, there is some hope. I'm just hoping there are more options at the start. I know Wizards have given up on "modules for all", but it'd be nice to see more tactical gaming, simulation style, and other potential rules as close to the start as they can make it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They have talked extensively about making the game modular. They've repeatedly stated that they want to keep the core version of the rules fairly simple so that it has an easy bar of entry for new players and will appeal to gamers who prefer more rules lite rpgs, and so that you can run sessions/combats that can play fairly quickly and don't get bogged down in tactical issues the way 3.5/4e can. We'll see how successful they are with that. They have also stated that though that version of the game will be the default/core version they plan to release later supplements that will allow players who want more tactical game play to add those types of elements onto the game. From what I've gathered they feel it is much easier to add additional rules and options to a simple base system than to try and reduce options later (can't put the genie back in the bottle type thing).
I would bet that 6 months to a year after the new version of D&D is released they will put out some sort of combat/tactics book that adds a bunch more rules for maneuver and tactical combat, as well as options for martial characters so that players can build characters that are a bit closer to 4e style martial characters. If the new core is their big 2014 GenCon release something like that might be their 2015 summer release. Of course this is just speculation.
I suppose I have this fantasy about finding the perfect rpg that will run just how I want it to, but the reality is that I've played tons of different systems over the years and every one has things I like and don't like about it. I am entirely confident that D&D Next will be like that as well. The question is will I like enough that I would opt to play it over 4e or Pathfinder (both games I have a love/hate relationship with). Tough to say.
I feel like they are trying hard, but there's some stuff in the system that seems like it should be obvious that it needs adjustment and hasn't really seen any change. For instance a high level fighter can use action surge and double the amount of attacks he takes, which gets crazy when he gets 3 to 4 attacks in a round (which becomes 6-8 when doubled), especially since he can move between attacks (though I like that he can move between attacks). Another thing that jumps out is the monster ACs. I think a lot of them need a bump of at least 3 points (a balor demon has AC 16- are you kidding me). I realize the math has been reduced, but even so with mechanics like advantage coming into play frequently and other bonuses, a high level warrior type should have no problem hitting AC 16. Fortunately, that one is a pretty easy DM fix, and maybe that kind of thing will be tweaked before the game is released.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose I have this fantasy about finding the perfect rpg that will run just how I want it to, but the reality is that I've played tons of different systems over the
As the editions of D&D start stacking up I come to realize that I had passed the 'perfect' D&D for me, and that was 2nd ed.
It allows me to play the version of D&D I like, the game 'feels' right, with the classes function as I picture in a Sword & Sandal setting. Really like what they did with specialist mages and cleric/druid spheres.
I find the classes act to have the party work together far more than happened in 3e (solo CoDzilla's or Destructo-Wizards) and not as forced seeming as in 4e.
I like D&DN quite a lot, but with the re-release of 2nd ed. I just can't see myself playing it much.
S.
What make 5e less streamlined than 3.5 or 4e? I suppose that you could say that how the advancement of the different classes is designed looks more streamlined than 4e, but in terms of game play I think things are more steam-lined (or at least user friendly in 5e- for the most part). For example, in 4e you end up with 6+ page character sheet (assuming you use the builder). Now granted that character sheet pretty much tells you everything you need so you don't have to look up hardly any rules (once you know the basics), so in a way it is great. In another way it could look pretty intimidating to a new player. There is a learning curve with understanding how to read power cards and knowing all the status effects and such that could be pretty off putting to someone who just wants to explore a dungeon and kill some orcs. It can also feel pretty gamey (in my experience, which is a common complaint about that system).
Pathfinder is arguably a little easier to get started with (i.e. a first level character is less complicated to run IMO). However Pathfinder has plenty of complexity that 5e has cut out. For example, barbarian rage doesn't require you to recalculate stats in the 5e playtest; there aren't near as many feats; you don't get into ability drain or damage; the spell list has been pruned (for now, which I'm sure is not a feature for many players); simplified/optional skill system etc... Pathfinder also has a lot of modifiers that can slow down the game, which Next seems to be trying to avoid with mechanics like advantage/disadvantage. I was running a combat for 8th level characters in my RotRL campaign Saturday and found myself getting frustrated by all the modifiers coming into play and the time spent calculating them (+2 for bardic performance, +1 bless, +1 haste, +2 favoured enemy, +2 flanking etc...). All the intensity of the combat was lost listening to players trying to track their bonuses, and that was only at level 8. Also stuff like AC calculation is toned down in Next, which to me is more streamlined. As of the playtest, you won't see something like this Pathfinder style AC calculation: +8 armor, +3 dex, +2 deflection, +1 dodge, +2 natural. Of course a lot of players will see this as a "dumbing down" of the game, but as a DM this can be a big time saver since in pathfinder a lot my NPC stat blocks are very time consuming to produce (especially for higher level games where you regularly need to stat up 15+ level casters and the like).
A lot of people keep saying, "You can't judge it till it comes out," but we've been given no indication that things are going differently than in the playtest.
Some of us enjoy playing by the rules of the current playtest packet, though.
2nd edition was the one I started with, and though I enjoyed it, I always felt like 3e was an improvement on it (I liked that they got rid of THACO, had a actual skill system, gave the martial classes a few more options, adjusted the xp progression, gave more guidelines for handing out treasure). On the other hand I kind of liked that the power level capped off a bit at higher levels in 2e (in that you stopped gaining full hit dice after 9th level). 2e never felt like it was really meant for players to run high level PCs since the RAW xp required to get there could take years of gaming to reach, so I could see how you would say it had a more low power feel.
I suppose I have this fantasy about finding the perfect rpg that will run just how I want it to, but the reality is that I've played tons of different systems over theAs the editions of D&D start stacking up I come to realize that I had passed the 'perfect' D&D for me, and that was 2nd ed.
It allows me to play the version of D&D I like, the game 'feels' right, with the classes function as I picture in a Sword & Sandal setting. Really like what they did with specialist mages and cleric/druid spheres.
I find the classes act to have the party work together far more than happened in 3e (solo CoDzilla's or Destructo-Wizards) and not as forced seeming as in 4e.
I like D&DN quite a lot, but with the re-release of 2nd ed. I just can't see myself playing it much.
S.
|
The problem is 5E is no more simple than 3E, and its less streamlined than 4E.
I don't see how anyone can possibly be serious when they say this. Over the last year I have had the opportunity to introduce several different people to RPGs, including my 12 year old daughter. Every one of them felt extremely overwhelmed with 3E but 5E was a breeze for all.
It seems to me that you are saying it is more complicated from a min-max standpoint where one pores over all of the choices to figure out the best DOT with the highest AC, etc...
5E is a dream come true for people like me that are fans of very rules light systems and who have not liked anything based on the d20 system.
They didn't promise to do that with the playtest, and they didn't necessarily promise to do that with the base game. I don't think you will see what you are looking for right away. I think it will be an add on down the road. Even then I'm not sure that they will come up with something that matches the tactical level of play you get with 4e and all the thousands of powers it has.
|
|
Some of us don't. The problem lies in their promise to include all play styles, which hasn't materialized, and which they aren't talking about.A lot of people keep saying, "You can't judge it till it comes out," but we've been given no indication that things are going differently than in the playtest.Some of us enjoy playing by the rules of the current playtest packet, though.
No such thing was promised. How many times must people point out to you that equally accommodating every play style is impossible. If you don't like the game that is fine, you are entitled to not like it. Don't play it. That is the great thing about gaming there are so many to choose from and find one you do like. In fact if you like 4E no one is forcing you to switch.
Not only was it promised, its on record. Go read the L&L articles where they repeat over and over that they want to include all play styles from all editions. You people are fighting facts with incredulity, it doesn't work that way.
Its also very possible to layer options on top of what all editions have in common:
Roll 1d20 add bonuses and penalties and try to beat a set number.
Fighters are good with weapons and armor (usually some kind of static bonus).
Rogues are good at stealth, larceny, traps, and locks and do more damage when they surprise opponents.
Clerics heal, turn undead, and are moderately good with weapons and armor.
Wizards cast powerful limited spells which they prepare ahead of time.
That describes each class from every edition including 4E.
It would be no problem to layer on 1E spells or 4E powers. It would be easy to put 1E to 3E static bonuses and weapon specialization onto fighters or to layer on a power system similar to 4E.
The same for the other classes.
However that's not what they did. They instead started with 2E as a base and are trying to layer 4E on top and it just doesn't work.
Presuming that's all true, what do you hope to achieve by discussing it? It seems to me the horse has bolted - it wont be the last time marketting information sent out prior to a product's release didnt match up to what was actually delivered.
.For my part (though I only followed the playtest in the early stages) I agree with PH Dungeon - I think the "enable all playstyles" goal was about the game eventually, not the game on release. It's not terribly important though - it's a safe bet that people picking up D&D:Next when it is released will be disappointed if they expect to be able to replicate the feel of all preceding editions with it.
My goal is to give them every chance to fix the situation, so that when 5E goes on sale and gets less money than 4E did, they won't have anyone to blame but themselves.
It could sell awesome to 1E and 2E fans, but if it fails to get the 3E and 4E fans or just fails to get the 4E fans, it will be a financial failure.
I think you might be overestimating the inluence you're able to have this late in the game. It's too late to make the kind of wholesale changes you seem to be advocating.
Well, they said it over and over in relation to what they were creating, so I'm pretty sure meant they were adding it to the play test and not in some future module. Of course even if they meant that it would require a near full rewrite of the game in the module to accomplish that. So it doesn't make sense there either way.
The most probable explanation is they didn't really know what the 4E play style was and thought adding a few window dressings from 4E would replicate the style, when the style is more about how the parts of 4E interacted, rather than any single part.
Maybe I'm a cynic, but if I were to accept your premise I think a far more probable explanation would be that they know their own game, they just think the 4E crowd are more likely to come on board anyhow.
I think that the Gladiator path for the fighter was supposed to be a glimpse of how they might tackle more tactical type martial builds and deal with combat maneuvers and such. However, if that is their template, I agree that it's a bit of joke compared to the options you have with a 4e martial character.
They may have a lot more maneuver options to choose from when they release the actual book (or not). If they release an option for opportunity attacks for things like getting up from prone then knocking an opponent prone will be more worth while, especially when you consider that if they stay prone they would fight with disadvantage and you would have advantage to hit them. Pushing an opponent can be very worthwhile in the right circumstance (pit, wizard puts up wall of fire etc..).
But I agree that is often more worthwhile just to do some extra damage. I found this when I was running a Dragon Age campaign. That system has some interesting mechanics for performing combat maneuvers, but in most cases I found that the players would just go for extra damage instead of the knock prone or move a target back etc...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My goal is to give them every chance to fix the situation, so that when 5E goes on sale and gets less money than 4E did, they won't have anyone to blame but themselves.
It could sell awesome to 1E and 2E fans, but if it fails to get the 3E and 4E fans or just fails to get the 4E fans, it will be a financial failure.
I don't think that it will fail to make money. I have two game groups with 6 people in one and 8 in another. None of the people in either group bought any 4E products. All of us are itching to buy 5E as soon as it comes out. Of all the gamers I know personally outside of those two groups only two of them have even played 4E and everyone is very excited about 5E. To think that if you and your fellow 4E fans fail to support it it will fail is arrogance in the extreme and just plain wrong.
To think that if you and your fellow 4E fans fail to support it it will fail is arrogance in the extreme and just plain wrong.
Arrogance of the same sort that we see here all the time, where people who don't like 4e insist that it must be a commercial failure because 3.x fans don't support it, right?
I'm moving in the near future. I put a bunch of 4e books up for sale on Kiji and a bunch of 3e books. I've sold all the 3e books no problem, but I've only been able to sell a few of my 4e books. I'm not sure if that's telling or not.
To think that if you and your fellow 4E fans fail to support it it will fail is arrogance in the extreme and just plain wrong.Arrogance of the same sort that we see here all the time, where people who don't like 4e insist that it must be a commercial failure because 3.x fans don't support it, right?
Did I say that or suggest it at all? No. There are a great many other great systems out there other than 3.x and 4E. The gaming community is much bigger than the players of any single edition and so 5E not getting support from any single edition isn't going to kill the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember shortly after the announcement that there would be modules adding play style options from other versions of the game to 5E, but I never interpreted that as in "modules will all be released with or shortly after the core books".
I pretty much always interpreted that as several books, some of which probably would not appear until long after the game was released, given that higher priority will be given to getting a player's, DM' and Monster book out to have a at least bare bones version of the game ready for purchase.
For DnD to attract 100% of the 4E fans is basically impossible. No edition every released has managed that. Even Pathfinder had it's detractors who prefer 3.5, and that is a relatively minor tweak of 3.5.
Either way they failed. I haven't found a 4E fan yet that wants to play 5E over 4E as anything more than a 1 shot.
Well I guess I am a first for you then. I love 4e and am really looking forward to 5e. We haven't seen the advanced tactical module yet and I really look forward to seeing what it has to offer.
*sigh*
Unless 5E is completely different from the play test any kind of module they tack on will not provide enough balanced tactical options to make 5E worth playing for me.
You said it. "For me". You are not everyone. Different people will place a different value on those options and, for that matter, on the issue of whether they are balanced or, if balance is that important.
They would have to redesign most of the classes from the ground up, giving non-casters as many options as casters (something like doubling their options each level to keep up. i.e. 3 at first 6 at second etc...etc...).
Why? Are options always good and are they all good? Does everyone need the same number? Can you get by with fewer, better options? It's like saying "we want more of... something". The need for everything to be balanced is based on a design assumption that has never been a part of D&D, until 4E (if then).
I just don't have your optimism for a product we haven't heard of or seen. I mean it might be different if they talked about it at all. The last I heard they were trying to tell us that 1E's facing would provide tactical options rather than making the game a dance fest as everyone dosedos around each other to get advantage from attacking backs. Other than that I haven't heard or seen anything on the subject.
It's obvious you are painfully pessimistic for a product you haven't seen. For DDN as a whole for that matter. Posting about it btw makes me think you have heard of at least the possibility. As for facing, until you know how / if they are using it and see it's place in the system you can't really say much about it. Other than making assumptions based on a bad experience in an old video game.
I remember when they mentioned facing being part of the tactical module. The WotC forums erupted in anger and despair. Almost no 4E fans thought it was a good idea. A few people who didn't like or had never played 4E said they liked it and asked what the problem was, but anyone that has ever played Final Fantasy Tactics knows exactly what I'm talking about.
My comment on facing is above. As for "forums erupting in anger and despair"... pretty much every other thread on some of them. It really depends on how many people you are talking about too. The anger and despair of a handful of prolific posters just doesn't impress me that much. The use of facing in an old video game has little to do with what it may, or may not, be in a future paper and pencil rpg release.
My attitude on DDN is "wait and see". I like some things I saw in the playtest, other elements not so much. Until I see the final product I'm not passing judgment on it.
My 2 cp.
This may have been said before so im sorry if it has.
I started with 2e and love it. When 3e came out I took a break from the hobby. I picked it back up with 4e. It was okay at first but combat took way to long and all the powers to keep up with was annoying (not all my players wanted to right em all down). 4e made me switch to pathfinder which I loved and felt more like the old school dnd I love. I have looked at the new rules for next and got excited from the old school feel it gave me.
I want to go back to gridless combat. I cant afford minis or tiles or whatever. Next seems to be able to cater to this. I just got really annoyed at everything you had to keep up with in 4e and that slowed the game down. Someone stated above 4e was streamlined and I disagree 100%. 4e was way too congested with powers.
I will buy Next when it drops but I will also continue to play PF as well. I have been playing the Sundering with PF rules and have really enjoyed it.