The New playtest and your thoughts.


4th Edition

101 to 147 of 147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

So far I am impressed. My aging gamer mind recalls many years ago when I made every character I rolled age 22 because it seems so old and mature a game that was just fun to play. WotC seem to be making that game again.

While PF is great I still find as GM I'm fighting the 'intellects' of my players, meaning I'm fighting the rules. 3.5e I had the same issues. At least to date 5e is fun to make up characters and feels like D&D - 4e while I enjoyed didn't make my ancient gaming hind-brain jump for remembered joy as 5e does to date.

So far they have a happy grognard in me.

Dark Archive

I spent an entire day trying to download the material when it came out. It didn't work. They posted some alternate links, that also did not work. I got frustrated and stopped trying. However their review software apparently works fine, and does not fail to email me every week regardless of me countlessly requesting to be taken off the list. Not a good start for me. I think I will stick with Pazio.


Just for the record, they seem to have figured it out. I was able to get the new packet without any trouble.

Though they are notifying each of the three accounts I tried signing up with the first time around.


Sorcerer and Wizard don't draw from the same spell list. Sorcerers have a Sorcerer list and Wizards draw from the Wizard list. Also, keep in mind, as written, the Sorcerer does not have an option to cast Ritual versions of the spells they have, however, since iirc, none of the spells they have are rituals anyway, that doesn't matter.

I get the feeling the Sorcerer is going to be nearly pure offense, while the Wizard is going to be more of the traditional God Wizard everyone plays now.

Liberty's Edge

Nimon wrote:


I spent an entire day trying to download the material when it came out. It didn't work. They posted some alternate links, that also did not work. I got frustrated and stopped trying. However their review software apparently works fine, and does not fail to email me every week regardless of me countlessly requesting to be taken off the list. Not a good start for me. I think I will stick with Pazio.

Try again now, I had no issues - it was four days after the release. Perhaps they had trouble keeping up with server demand?

5e, so far, is not trying to be PF and by default 3.5e. So far (again) I don't see it as choosing Paizo over WotC, both games have their strengths and weaknesses. PF is about as much a pick up game as partial differential calculus is. 5e has about as many layers of mechanics as flatland [Please note in both cases I am slightly exaggerating].

Not sure what type of game you like but if you are of the vintage where Dragons had a %chance of being asleep then I think you will like 5e as it stands.

D&D is a table top game, judging it on web performance seems a little over reactive.

Horses for courses.

Liberty's Edge

I really like the instructions in the side bar of the DM Guidelines page 3 on DC's. D&D as I remember it being as a DM.

Keep it up WotC...

Grand Lodge

Stefan Hill wrote:
I really like the instructions in the side bar of the DM Guidelines page 3 on DC's.

That's pretty much how I've used DCs in 3.x and Pathfinder...


Tels wrote:

Sorcerer and Wizard don't draw from the same spell list. Sorcerers have a Sorcerer list and Wizards draw from the Wizard list. Also, keep in mind, as written, the Sorcerer does not have an option to cast Ritual versions of the spells they have, however, since iirc, none of the spells they have are rituals anyway, that doesn't matter.

I get the feeling the Sorcerer is going to be nearly pure offense, while the Wizard is going to be more of the traditional God Wizard everyone plays now.

That's not entirely accurate. There is only one massive list of spells, all detailed "Wizard Spell". The Sorcerer classes draws from that specific list, illustrating that they cannot gain access to specific spells. Wizards, OTOH, have no restriction.

Also, there are going to be multiple bloodlines that will, I'm betting, allow other styles other than Gish. Probably one that is more area effects and "caster" than spell/sword attacker and another that might be more defensive in nature.

Liberty's Edge

Digitalelf wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
I really like the instructions in the side bar of the DM Guidelines page 3 on DC's.
That's pretty much how I've used DCs in 3.x and Pathfinder...

Me too. But I like to see it in print to remind people. After all D&D is a "Product of the Imagination" (TSR) not a product of science.

S.


I think we will be playing a lot of this. Tried today but everyone wanted to play and no one wanted to DM. Ended up just making 2-3 characters each and all sitting around reading the packet and commenting on things out loud and then somehow ended up playing pathfinder instead. Maybe tomorow, but I think more PF is more likely because the session ended on a cliffhanger. Soon though. Everyone loves what they see.


The true test for me is how they design and implement the Paladin. That has been, by far, my favorite class since late 2nd Edition and it's only gotten better as the editions have changed. If we go BACK to having the paladin be SUB-PAR and requiring 14's and 15's in 4 different stats to make it playable.....I'm done.


I havent downloaded any of the material but I did read quite a bit of the posts already made. I realize that the new D&D can be played in any world (homemade or boughten, such as Greyhawk, Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms. Id like to know what world others feel has the best feel for the new D&D rules and which worlds just wouldn't have the same feel by using the new rules. Id really appreciate opinions on this issue.


Off the top of my head I would say it feels right for Greyhawk so far, but I haven't played it yet, maybe today. Then again, the demo adventure in the new packet is set in Blingdenstone which is from the FR under dark I believe.


EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
I havent downloaded any of the material but I did read quite a bit of the posts already made. I realize that the new D&D can be played in any world (homemade or boughten, such as Greyhawk, Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms. Id like to know what world others feel has the best feel for the new D&D rules and which worlds just wouldn't have the same feel by using the new rules. Id really appreciate opinions on this issue.

I think I'm biased because I don't associate any rules system with separate campaign settings. 4E works wonders for just about any sort of D&D campaign setting there is. It does get more tricky with the less magic you have, but because of the inheriant bonuses described in the DMG 2, that's not really a problem either.

I know the Forgotten Realms will be supported. I HOPE they support Greyhawk as well as Eberron too. I'd really like to see strong support for Ravenloft and even more Nenthir Vale (with different Gods. Stop pilfering GW!). But as it stands, the Rules are so shifty and incomplete at this time it's hard to get a good reading.

Sovereign Court

Diffan wrote:
EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
I havent downloaded any of the material but I did read quite a bit of the posts already made. I realize that the new D&D can be played in any world (homemade or boughten, such as Greyhawk, Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms. Id like to know what world others feel has the best feel for the new D&D rules and which worlds just wouldn't have the same feel by using the new rules. Id really appreciate opinions on this issue.

I think I'm biased because I don't associate any rules system with separate campaign settings. 4E works wonders for just about any sort of D&D campaign setting there is. It does get more tricky with the less magic you have, but because of the inheriant bonuses described in the DMG 2, that's not really a problem either.

I know the Forgotten Realms will be supported. I HOPE they support Greyhawk as well as Eberron too. I'd really like to see strong support for Ravenloft and even more Nenthir Vale (with different Gods. Stop pilfering GW!). But as it stands, the Rules are so shifty and incomplete at this time it's hard to get a good reading.

While I agree and would like to see all those settings get support, didnt supporting too many settings sink the ship before?


They mentioned specifically during the keynote address at Gen Con that they expect to support Forgotten Realms exclusively for a while, but with plots and plans for the other settings down the road. It should be noted that Mike Mearls is a Greyhawk fan.


Wow that's cool. Would it still be post-spellplague FR though?


WotC has a habit of invoking a Realm Shattering Event each time a new edition comes out. Time of Troubles, Spellplague, etc. R.A. Salvatore is supposed to be writing a new novel that will 'alter the realms' in some way. Hints are suggested to be bringing Mystra back into power, ending the whole Spellplague thing for good.


I want to play in a realms where the spellplague never happened though. I wonder if they would make that possible.


Grimmy wrote:
I want to play in a realms where the spellplague never happened though. I wonder if they would make that possible.

Have you heard of this place called Golarion?

:P


Grimmy: they promised that it wouldn't be a retcon, and Salvatore is only one of seven novelists (following seven different sets of FR individuals) in the Realms-Shaking event.

They've also made vague allusions to being able to play in "the realms you want to", though whether that means they're supporting multiple time-frames or just talking about allowing Living FR to dictate the Realms' future (which they are talking about), is hard to say.


I'm not really certain why exactly, it is that WotC decides to totally alter the face of the Realms, every time they have a new edition. I don't play in any of the other settings (Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Eberron etc) so I don't know if they do the same thing there. If they don't, why is Faerun so popular?


Tels wrote:
I'm not really certain why exactly, it is that WotC decides to totally alter the face of the Realms, every time they have a new edition. I don't play in any of the other settings (Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Eberron etc) so I don't know if they do the same thing there. If they don't, why is Faerun so popular?

Because FR is a "living world" with an "advancing timeline" (so they've got to update things). Further, magic and it's specific workings are so deeply tied to the setting, that changing even the tiniest element of the rules will alter FR dramatically... so they have to explain away the changes somehow. Finally, magical cataclysms that change the way all of the world works is actually tied deeply into the backstory of the setting (unlike others): specifically Karsus' folly.

And Greyhawk got a similar update: ...

[spoilers=SPOILERS!]: in the adventure Vecna Must Die (if I recall correctly), Vecna nearly succeeds in becoming master of all reality until stopped by the adventurers. Although stopped, the effects that he'd created to do so were so great that it caused all of reality to shift about somewhat (and he came back more powerful and no longer lawful)...[/spoilers]

... so there's precedent for it there, too.

Also, Faerun is so popular, because... Faerun is popular! Between novels, video games, and the like, the setting is one of the biggest money-makers for D&D.


I meant, why so popular in the Realm Shattering Events regard. Do the other settings get their God of Magic killed every 10 years as well? Or is Faerun the only one that has some reality altering cataclysms on a regular basis?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I understand the legacy of cataclysmic events, and I'm not against RSE's that feel integral and organic to the setting, a la Karsus Folly and Time of Troubles, but Spellplague seemed a little contrived. "How do we work Dragonborn in?... I know how about a continent falls out of the sky!" (That was the impression I got anyone, maybe I didn't give it a fair chance.)


Grimmy wrote:

I understand the legacy of cataclysmic events, and I'm not against RSE's that feel integral and organic to the setting, a la Karsus Folly and Time of Troubles, but Spellplague seemed a little contrived. "How do we work Dragonborn in?... I know how about a continent falls out of the sky!" (That was the impression I got anyone, maybe I didn't give it a fair chance.)

I think the main issue with the Spellplague is that... they skipped it. Rather than have an adventure or any other ways for the PCs to actually experience the cataclysm, they jumped 100 years down the line, with all the interesting stuff already over and done with. They didn't even fully flesh out what had happened until a few years later in the novels series.

I mean, I actually enjoyed the post-spellplague setting itself, but it felt like they really dropped the ball on how they handled the entire event overall.


Matthew Koelbl wrote:
I think the main issue with the Spellplague is that... they skipped it. Rather than have an adventure or any other ways for the PCs to actually experience the cataclysm, they jumped 100 years down the line, with all the interesting stuff already over and done with. They didn't even fully flesh out what had happened until a few years later in the novels series.

I would have to agree that was a big reason. They came up with a decent idea, but shot themselves in the foot in how they implemented it. What could have been a really cool event if they had played it out turned into a skeleton of an idea that came across more like an excuse than an organic part of the world. This is especially true of dropping an entire continent into the world; interesting idea, but definitely needed more support than "it just kind of happened."

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If they are going for a retro-feel D&D I would have no issue with FR looking and feeling like it did in 1e AD&D personally. It was far more a realm of adventure and less of a "Dear diary, met three gods today and had lunch. Lunch was quite nice." place to adventure in.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yeah - if I were them I'd do a relaunch of the grey boxed set - at least in style. Similar to their take on Darksun or Eberron in 4E. Both of those were received far more positively than the FR relaunch was.

Liberty's Edge

Hopefully they will not assume that something written 20 years ago means it is bad and meddle if things. Prime example is the latest Total Rekall movie. At least they had the good sense not to call it Total Recall so when asking for it you can get the awesome Arnie version...


Stefan Hill wrote:
Really liking what I am reading. So far WotC have my money for this game. Old school feel with simple mechanics. And as yet no battle mat or square counting!!! Yeh!

See, I still don't get this with the aversion to the battlemat. It is as if people think that 4E was the first version to use a battlemat. Back in the late 70's, the battlemat was used all the time. You still used it for movement, area effects, and range...plus just mini placement. 2nd Edition was the same.

The battlemat has been a necessity ever since the 2nd Edition Combat & Tactics. 3rd Edition (and Pathfinder) absolutely utilize a battlemat. 5-foot steps, movement, flanking, AOEs, etc all need them.

TotM proponents will argue "no we don't!" Sure you can get by without it. I run my 4E game without a mat sometimes. But combats with many opponents scattered about become confusing without it. But all versions of the game benefit from a grid.


So I am wanting to run this round of the playtest as a short campaign, I am looking for suggestions for a good mini campaign for levels 1-5.
Edition doesn't matter, I don't mind converting, just something with a good story. Either a low-level mega adventure like Keep on the borderlands or a series of adventures that tie together.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I, for one, understand the reasons for the Spellplague as a way of explaining the great mechanical changes between 3rd and 4th edition. I would be mostly ok with that except for somewhat sloppy application and blatantly disregarding previous works just because creators of the 4th edition FR didn't wanted to bother with learning the old setting.

I think the primary problem with Spellpague is that is virtually repeating Time Of Troubles on a greater scale so soon destroying the effect - using the same plot device over and over gets stale very fast.

Not to mention my pet peeve against 4th edition FR: killing and removing gods without rhyme or reason. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of gods dying, getting replaced, ascension and fall but the way the WotC dealt with the deities after 1373 was poorly done and for reason no other than "we can't handle more than a handful deities anyway so we remove them". continues ranting for some more time about the low quality of deity killing plots between 3rd and 4th edition.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Scott Andrews wrote:

So I am wanting to run this round of the playtest as a short campaign, I am looking for suggestions for a good mini campaign for levels 1-5.

Edition doesn't matter, I don't mind converting, just something with a good story. Either a low-level mega adventure like Keep on the borderlands or a series of adventures that tie together.

First instalment-and-a-bit of an AP, maybe? Perhaps carrion crown or legacy of fire?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
theroc wrote:


Back in the late 70's, I used the battlemat all the time. I still used it for movement, area effects, and range...plus just mini placement. 2nd Edition was the same for me.

There, fixed that for you.

I think the point you're arguing against is that there's been an increased focus on the necessity of battlemaps and miniatures in later editions. Such as 4th Ed listing all ranges in squares which is just a major inconvenience if you don't use it.


Scott Andrews wrote:

So I am wanting to run this round of the playtest as a short campaign, I am looking for suggestions for a good mini campaign for levels 1-5.

Edition doesn't matter, I don't mind converting, just something with a good story. Either a low-level mega adventure like Keep on the borderlands or a series of adventures that tie together.

Perhaps the Pathfinder Darkmoon Vale modules are something you can use?

Hollows Last Hope
Crown of the Kobold King
Carnival of Tears
Revenge of the Kobold King
Tower of the Last Baron
Treasure of Chimera Cove
Hungry are the Dead

Or perhaps the Price of Immortality series?

Crypt of the Everflame
Masks of the Living God
City of Golden Death


Slaunyeh wrote:
theroc wrote:


Back in the late 70's, I used the battlemat all the time. I still used it for movement, area effects, and range...plus just mini placement. 2nd Edition was the same for me.

There, fixed that for you.

I think the point you're arguing against is that there's been an increased focus on the necessity of battlemaps and miniatures in later editions. Such as 4th Ed listing all ranges in squares which is just a major inconvenience if you don't use it.

Sure, but AD&D used inches in the statblock which, if I'm remembering correctly, scaled to a different distance inside and outside. 2E lists very small numbers in the statblock under movement, so I assume that's squares or something of the sort. (That was during my Traveller years, so I never really familiarized myself with the rules.) At this late date I can't remember what BECMI used, but 4E was hardly the first edition to be written for the battlemat.

Don't get me wrong, I think listing movement in feet is a terrific way to go, it's just that 3E broke ground doing it.

Grand Lodge

Hitdice wrote:
AD&D used inches in the statblock which, if I'm remembering correctly, scaled to a different distance inside and outside.

With 1st edition, 1" of movement speed = 10' per round (60 seconds) or 1' per segment (6 seconds), so a character with a 12" movement could move 120' per round or 12' per segment.

Outdoor movement was 1" = the number of miles a character could move in half a day, so a movement of 12" meant a character could move 12 miles in half a day.

2nd edition changed things a bit. So the number representing movement was no longer in inches, and now represented movement in tens of yards, so a character with a movement of 12 could travel 120 yards in one minute.

Outdoor movement was twice the character's movement in miles per day (with 10 hours representing how far a character could travel in one day). So, a movement of 12 meant that character could travel 24 miles in 10 hours.

Liberty's Edge

Digitalelf wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
AD&D used inches in the statblock which, if I'm remembering correctly, scaled to a different distance inside and outside.

With 1st edition, 1" of movement speed = 10' per round (60 seconds) or 1' per segment (6 seconds), so a character with a 12" movement could move 120' per round or 12' per segment.

Not forgetting that 12" was 120' indoors but 120 yards outside. The exception was spells where the range/radius etc was always in feet. Made a lot of sense in cases like a bow or crossbow. Outside you could angle higher and get more distance from a shoot. Something not possible inside with a ceiling 10' above you.

The hard codifying of the rules with miniature play began in core books with 3e and was firmly entrenched by 3.5e (and now PF), and I would say perfected almost in 4e. The argument is that this progression did not allow for '2e style', being the only edition that didn't have miniature play in the combat system as core rules, play. 5e at the moment is very 2e in its approach to combat resolution. Keeping this core and adding on miniature play is a far more attractive option then the reverse (as taken by 3.5e/PF/4e) to me. 5'-steps without a battle mat are a nightmare.

So for me the slick 5e rules with a 2e narrative approach to combat resolution would be a very welcome version of D&D.

Then again if they just reprinted the D&D Cyclopedia and called it 5e I would be happy...

S.


I could accept different rates of measurement as a module, but for simplicity just standardize them for now, although I do find it comical that they drop units of measurement from 4E to go back to explicit measurements in 5E; like it was some type of improvment. But that is splitting hairs. It is good they are going back to include narratives in 5E, as it was baffling why they dropped that heritage from 4E, when it could have handled it easily. They did the hard part on focusing on the underlying mechanics to improve the game overall.

As to a world, it would be refreshing to create new one, but that would be a tall order in comparison to their current challenges. I would be happy if they released Greyhawk again. If they focus on Forgotten Realms they are just going to open up alot of old wounds.


Uchawi wrote:
If they focus on Forgotten Realms they are just going to open up alot of old wounds.

How so? I'm especially curious, because they've made it pretty clear FR will be the focus going into D&D Next.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They should drop that feet reference and replace them with cubits... 1 square/5 feet = 3 cubits. Who wouldn't love that?

Liberty's Edge

Drejk wrote:
They should drop that feet reference and replace them with cubits... 1 square/5 feet = 3 cubits. Who wouldn't love that?

Only historically 1 square equalled 10 feet...


Stefan Hill wrote:
Drejk wrote:
They should drop that feet reference and replace them with cubits... 1 square/5 feet = 3 cubits. Who wouldn't love that?
Only historically 1 square equalled 10 feet...

And round lasted for 1 minute... Thankfuly it is thing of the long gone past.


we played and enjoyed 5 sessions of playtest 1. it felt different, and better, to other d20 and this was good

we rolled up characters for playtest 2. we likied the way the characters developed back-story as you added in race, background, specials etc

we then played. It felt like a mix between 3rd and 4th and we didnt like it as it was mostly 'already available'

they really need to sort hps out

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

I am just starting to read the new playtest materials and I really, really like what they have done with the Fighter class and the Expertise dice, simple but very flexible. This has me fired up for D&D Next!

Grand Lodge

My group just play tested on Sunday.
We like the rules light, but we are for certain there are still a few rules missing.

Some of the spells don't match up to the spell descriptions, and the monsters seem just off here and there.

But those are the things you complain about on a playtest. That's why it's a play test.

But we enjoyed it.

101 to 147 of 147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / The New playtest and your thoughts. All Messageboards

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