D&DNext - D&D 5th edition, a light version of PF in my humble opinion.


4th Edition

251 to 300 of 326 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't post much in this area because I never adopted 4e. But I had to respond to this post...

Tacticslion wrote:


And I really hope that someone, somewhere out there, creates an NWN-like something for D&D 4E (but on a grid, like Final Fantasy Tactics, Tactics Ogre, or similar games) because, frankly, it's the best edition for something like that, and the fact that Hasbro can't get Atari to move their corporate rear end and nobody's willing to step up and develop the thing due to all the licensing fees is ridiculous.

Sadly, Atari acquiring the license was the worst thing to happen to D&D gaming on the computer. Things have been horrible ever since. It doesn't help matters that Bioware helped to up the value of that license, which is why Atari felt they needed to tight-fist it. 4e is definitely the most computer friendly version of the game, and yet somehow, the least supported on the PC and other platforms. Tactics games, 2D or iso RPGs, so much wasted opportunity with 4e. Despite the fact that I never cared for the edition, Hasbro should have farmed that license out in an effort to get digital games out to a new audience. It might have driven some new blood into the game to replace what they drove away with their marketing. 4e might have gone a different route if there had been a decent app or 3 on mobile devices using the license.

Tacticslion wrote:


The 4E game I'm playing right now would run so much more smoothly as a video game it's crazy silly that I can't get one (except for an MMO which diverts strongly from the rule system, doesn't have a modding toolset available as I understand it, and, being an MMO, I probably won't touch).

Sigh.

It's also crazy silly that the people behind the 4e VTT dropped the ball so very, very badly. A unified, social, digital environment also might have done very good things for the game and the license. The fact that their 4e gaming license also precluded just about anyone from making similar digital tools sealed that coffin tight.

The company that finally finds a way to blend the online social realm with their game is going to enjoy a longer life with a wider audience. But there is a lot there they need to get right... tools, ease of use, product linking/sharing, and even organized play and events. There will always be people that want to play in-person at a table, but grabbing that online market will plant them in the minds and hearts of the newer generation(s), and that can only be a good thing.

It's probably too late for 5e... but Pathfinder 2 or 6th... they need to start life as a digital service from day 1.

Liberty's Edge

R_Chance wrote:
We started with miniatures in 1974. We had been playing Chainmail w. fantasy for a while (That's how I started my campaign world). Using miniatures was natural. We've never played without them. No matter the rules edition, miniatures lay out the situation making it clear to everyone what the situation is and save a lot of arguments that would arise about who is where / who can do what / who can see what / who will be effected by "X". Without DM fiat. It may take a bit of time to set up, but I think it saves more in discussion / explanation / argument. And they look cool :)

Again that is your experience. Mine was the opposite, from B/E to AD&D to 2e to 3e to 3.5e to 4e - other than for marching order now and then never a miniature was on our table.

My complain against 3.5e/4e/PF is they have rules that to make full use of require use of miniatures. 3.5e and 4e made DMing just way to hard unless you wanted to play in the 'sanctioned way'.

Courses for horses they say.

S.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkbridger wrote:
4e is definitely the most computer friendly version of the game...

This is bandied about as though it were gospel truth, but I don't agree in the slightest. 3.X, as evidenced by DDO, makes a much better video game. DDO has, literally, the best combat of any MMO, mostly owing to the fluid nature of 3.X's combat system. 4E is far too structured and inherently turn-based to make anything but a grid-based game.


Sebastrd wrote:
Darkbridger wrote:
4e is definitely the most computer friendly version of the game...
This is bandied about as though it were gospel truth, but I don't agree in the slightest. 3.X, as evidenced by DDO, makes a much better video game. ]DDO has, literally, the best combat of any MMO, mostly owing to the fluid nature of 3.X's combat system. 4E is far too structured and inherently turn-based to make anything but a grid-based game.

And who's gospel truth is that? Guess I don't agree in the slightest. See how that works?

All of this is opinion and subject to personal taste. My quote is based on experiences and discussions I had with game designers when I was a game developer. While many of them preferred 3.5e for their actual game, most felt the streamlined rules of 4e leant themselves better to computer interpretation with fewer corner cases and exceptions. But that's a factor of evaluating development time and effort. That was also comparing realtively new 4e with few expansions to the full breadth of 3.5. Given their choice, I'm sure all of them would have chosen 3.5 to make a game in (and the licensing at least would have allowed it).

My post was also about tactics games and 2d RPGs, which historically, involved grid based, or grid derived combat. Hence my opinion that 4e is the most friendly rules to that sort of setup. Real time combat... I don't feel any D&D rules set is up to that task, but like the previous post, it's an opinion. If you took something I said as "gospel truth", then that was not the intent. Regardless of what anyone thinks of any version, the lack of digital, licensed content did a lot to hurt the potential 4e market.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stefan Hill wrote:


Again that is your experience. Mine was the opposite, from B/E to AD&D to 2e to 3e to 3.5e to 4e - other than for marching order now and then never a miniature was on our table.

Yes it was, and I know it varies. With us it was Chainmail fantasy to 0E to 1E to 2E to 3E to 3.5E. And now PF. Movement in 0E and 1E was measured in inches. Spells used areas of effect (lines, cones, radius, etc.) designed for use on the table. The rules were always made with miniatures (or markers) in mind even if they didn't require them. Even as we moved away from miniatures and into rpgs it always struck me as easier to use miniatures as a result. And, of course, coming from miniature wargaming roots we had quite a few laying around. If you didn't come in to the hobby through miniatures (and today I'm sure most don't) or want to collect / paint them you could do it without, but at some point you need the information they provide (marching order, current location, los, who can hit what / touch what, whose in a given line / cone / radius of effect etc.) through some means.

Stefan Hill wrote:


My complain against 3.5e/4e/PF is they have rules that to make full use of require use of miniatures. 3.5e and 4e made DMing just way to hard unless you wanted to play in the 'sanctioned way'.

Courses for horses they say.

S.

For obvious reasons this wasn't a complaint for me although I can see how it would be for others.


I would recommend checking out some of the retreoclones as they have often fixed various problems of XYZ edition just in different ways.

Myth and Magic for example is a clone of 2nd ed but uses BAB and more modern mechanics. Thief class got buff, level limits and restrictions are gone. Has a basic talent system that is optional and it resembles feats. Needs some 2nd ed books to run though assuming you know how to flip ACs and THACO into BAB and ascending ACs.

Current addiction is this little number.

Adventurer Conqueror King
http://www.rpgnow.com/product/99123/Adventurer-Conqueror-King-System

It is a clone of the BE part of BECMI and it goes up to level 14. BECMI has 7 classes (9 in the RC) this has 12 and the splatbook for it has another 19 which are things like Paladin, Barbarian etc or are similar to AD&D multiclass. Also has a basic proficiency system that is talents and feats by another name. You can't really char op your ass off though although you can gain a +1 to hit, AC or damage as one option and if you have ever played BECMI that +1 doesn't sound like much in modern systems but in ACKs it matters.


Zardnaar wrote:


I would recommend checking out some of the retreoclones as they have often fixed various problems of XYZ edition just in different ways.

Myth and Magic for example is a clone of 2nd ed but uses BAB and more modern mechanics. Thief class got buff, level limits and restrictions are gone. Has a basic talent system that is optional and it resembles feats. Needs some 2nd ed books to run though assuming you know how to flip ACs and THACO into BAB and ascending ACs.

Current addiction is this little number.

Adventurer Conqueror King
http://www.rpgnow.com/product/99123/Adventurer-Conqueror-King-System

It is a clone of the BE part of BECMI and it goes up to level 14. BECMI has 7 classes (9 in the RC) this has 12 and the splatbook for it has another 19 which are things like Paladin, Barbarian etc or are similar to AD&D multiclass. Also has a basic proficiency system that is talents and feats by another name. You can't really char op your ass off though although you can gain a +1 to hit, AC or damage as one option and if you have ever played BECMI that +1 doesn't sound like much in modern systems but in ACKs it matters.

I have ACK, pdf and hardcopy. I have heard about Myth and Magic but haven't picked it up. I'll have to give it a go. My brother's game is still 0E / 1E. I gave him a copy of Swords and Wizardry to save a bit of wear and tear on the old 0E books. We have multiple copies of everything 1E (and most everything 2E, 3E, 3.5E for that matter). My brother is retired now, but he owned a hobby shop up until a few years ago.


Dungeon Crawl Classics takes a bunch of stuff to a new level (you'll just have to get used to all those funny dice), but I do enjoy the magic system. (Sadly, I have yet to find a free and legal version on the interwebz.)

Liberty's Edge

R_Chance wrote:
Movement in 0E and 1E was measured in inches.

You can add 2e to that also. While using the inch symbol (") this was representing 10 feet indoors and 10 yards outside. True 'measured' combat enshrined in the rules were not in 1e, completely removed in 2e, brought to life in 3e, codified in 3.5e, and taken to the nth degree in 4e.

I too have played a lot of wargaming which is why I am so against needing miniatures in my 'Products of the Imagination' games...

D&DN will likely be awful if they make a hybrid combat ruleset. Having a book like the 3e/3.5e miniatures handbook to appease the wargaming crowd would be my prefered option. Having said that 2e Warhammer Fantasy RPG did pretty good job of having both styles of play in one book.

S.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sebastrd wrote:
Darkbridger wrote:
4e is definitely the most computer friendly version of the game...
This is bandied about as though it were gospel truth, but I don't agree in the slightest. 3.X, as evidenced by DDO, makes a much better video game. DDO has, literally, the best combat of any MMO, mostly owing to the fluid nature of 3.X's combat system. 4E is far too structured and inherently turn-based to make anything but a grid-based game.

Sorry, but pointing to DDO as a game that implements the 3.5 rules is pretty silly. They have, roughly, nothing to do with each other. Now, if we're talking 'true' 3.5 interpretations in video games it could make sense to point to a game like Temple of Elemental Evil, which was a very faithful interpretation of the 3.5 ruleset.

For the record, "omg 4E is an MMO" outcries aside, I agree that 4e would be a much better system to implement in a video game. I'm not a fan of the tabletop game, but I think it would work really well in a video game. It's too bad it has never happened.


Stefan Hill wrote:


You can add 2e to that also. While using the inch symbol (") this was representing 10 feet indoors and 10 yards outside. True 'measured' combat enshrined in the rules were not in 1e, completely removed in 2e, brought to life in 3e, codified in 3.5e, and taken to the nth degree in 4e.

I thought 2E was too, but I tend to run 1E and 2E together in my mind. 2E eventually became very miniature oriented. I was just looking back through my Player's Option: Combat and Tactics book (1995). Interesting but almost too detailed.

Stefan Hill wrote:


I too have played a lot of wargaming which is why I am so against needing miniatures in my 'Products of the Imagination' games...

Miniatures or no, the game requires a lot of imagination. I never found miniatures to limit that, but to each their own.

Stefan Hill wrote:


D&DN will likely be awful if they make a hybrid combat ruleset. Having a book like the 3e/3.5e miniatures handbook to appease the wargaming crowd would be my prefered option. Having said that 2e Warhammer Fantasy RPG did pretty good job of having both styles of play in one book.

S.

I'd guess they are stepping back from the glut of feats that are in 3E and keeping them limited. That leaves them with restricted choices. Keep combat very simple, go with a mini-game approach (very unlikely) or go with a more tactical system. The tactical route will involve markers of some kind whether they use miniatures or counters. It's funny that 3E was supposed to simplify a combat system that was too intricate / tactical, but looking at it now it's every bit as complex due to the proliferation of weapon stats and feats and their interactions.

Keeping it simple and having a "Player's Option: Combat and Tactics" book would be one way to go. I can see it working for both the miniature / no miniature camps.

Liberty's Edge

R_Chance wrote:
Keeping it simple and having a "Player's Option: Combat and Tactics" book would be one way to go. I can see it working for both the miniature / no miniature camps.

100% agree. But if they do make a dogs breakfast of it then I still have my 2e books :)

The maths would be;

1 + 2 + 3 + 3.5 + 4 + N = D&D_total

If D&DN rules work for both camps;

N = 5 then D&D_total = 18.5

If D&DN has nice ideas badly implemented;

N = -11.5 then D&D_total = 2!!!

Wow even mathematics is telling me to play 2e - it is like magic ;)


1E and 2E were certainly playable without miniatures. You could bring them in if you really wanted, of course, and you had the two editions of BATTLESYSTEM rules for mass mini combat alongside the D&D rules, but they were not mandatory and not necessary.

3E was made more with minis in mind, but again they were not essential. I DMed 3E regularly for between seven and eight years and never once used minis or a battlemat, though sometimes a very rough and ready terrain map of the battlefield would be produced.

I didn't play enough 4E to say for sure, but certainly the couple of campaigns I did play floundered badly during combat without using minis to keep track of what was going on.


Sebastrd wrote:
This is bandied about as though it were gospel truth, but I don't agree in the slightest. 3.X, as evidenced by DDO, makes a much better video game.

DDO and Neverwinter (which is based on 4e) have roughly equivalent metascores (74 vs. 72). The only thing that's fair to say is that, as far as we know, the choice of underlying system inspiration has little to no impact on the quality of the game.

Quote:
DDO has, literally, the best combat of any MMO,

Ignoring for the moment that this is an inherently subjective statement, I don't think it's even a very widely-held one. I've played a lot of MMORPGs, and DDO's combat system didn't strike me as particularly inspiring. It was fairly run-of-the-mill. I'm not sure what people would latch onto as evidence of it being the best - unless, of course, your metric for how good a combat system is is how closely it matches D&D 3.5 rules.

Quote:
mostly owing to the fluid nature of 3.X's combat system.

Which it had very little in common with.

Quote:
4E is far too structured and inherently turn-based to make anything but a grid-based game.

And yet they created Neverwinter, which has a really solid combat system based on the 4e ruleset (or, at least, based on something as similar to the 4e ruleset as DDO is to the 3.5 ruleset).


Have things gotten any clearer or improved in the recent play tests?

Liberty's Edge

Shalafi2412 wrote:
Have things gotten any clearer or improved in the recent play tests?

My subjective opinion would be yes. My long term group is playing the latest and we have really enjoying it. I enjoy DMing (3.5e sucked the fun of DMing right out of me) and the players are really liking their characters with no one persons character really stealing every scene or fight.

I'm repeating myself but currently it plays like a streamlined 2e with some nice twists. I know some hate the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, but in play we love it.

S.


Stefan Hill wrote:


R_Chance wrote:


Keeping it simple and having a "Player's Option: Combat and Tactics" book would be one way to go. I can see it working for both the miniature / no miniature camps.

100% agree. But if they do make a dogs breakfast of it then I still have my 2e books :)

The maths would be;

1 + 2 + 3 + 3.5 + 4 + N = D&D_total

If D&DN rules work for both camps;

N = 5 then D&D_total = 18.5

If D&DN has nice ideas badly implemented;

N = -11.5 then D&D_total = 2!!!

Wow even mathematics is telling me to play 2e - it is like magic ;)

I'm liking a lot of what I see, so far, in 5E. 3.x is fun but over time it has become a pain. If I had to drop back to a prior edition I think late 1E would be the winner.

Liberty's Edge

R_Chance wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:


R_Chance wrote:


Keeping it simple and having a "Player's Option: Combat and Tactics" book would be one way to go. I can see it working for both the miniature / no miniature camps.

100% agree. But if they do make a dogs breakfast of it then I still have my 2e books :)

The maths would be;

1 + 2 + 3 + 3.5 + 4 + N = D&D_total

If D&DN rules work for both camps;

N = 5 then D&D_total = 18.5

If D&DN has nice ideas badly implemented;

N = -11.5 then D&D_total = 2!!!

Wow even mathematics is telling me to play 2e - it is like magic ;)

I'm liking a lot of what I see, so far, in 5E. 3.x is fun but over time it has become a pain. If I had to drop back to a prior edition I think late 1E would be the winner.

I would be torn between 1e/2e - 1e for the weapon to hit adjustments and 2e for the inspired initiative system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Werthead wrote:

1E and 2E were certainly playable without miniatures. You could bring them in if you really wanted, of course, and you had the two editions of BATTLESYSTEM rules for mass mini combat alongside the D&D rules, but they were not mandatory and not necessary.

3E was made more with minis in mind, but again they were not essential. I DMed 3E regularly for between seven and eight years and never once used minis or a battlemat, though sometimes a very rough and ready terrain map of the battlefield would be produced.

I didn't play enough 4E to say for sure, but certainly the couple of campaigns I did play floundered badly during combat without using minis to keep track of what was going on.

In the heavily houseruled 2E games I played and the myriad of "more or less RAW" 3.X games I've played and GM'd we almost never used a mat.

In 4E, either we were using a mat, arguing about how far things were, or almost completely ignoring the rules (the last being the most fun of the three for us).

Slaunyeh wrote:
For the record, "omg 4E is an MMO" outcries aside, I agree that 4e would be a much better system to implement in a video game. I'm not a fan of the tabletop game, but I think it would work really well in a video game. It's too bad it has never happened.

See, 4E doesn't seem like a great MMO, at least not in the standard MMO format I'm aware of.

But it does feel like it'd make an amazing grid-based video game.

AMAZING.

Just imagine, if you will, playing 4E but using, say, Tactics Ogre's maps and graphics. Imagine it. IMAGINE IT.

If you're not already having fun, you're not imagining it right. :)

(Now, imagine it more with an NWN-like toolset to go with it. Feel free to be lost in dream land.)

I love myself some 3.X. It's one of the reasons I'm sticking with PF so solidly. I like some of 3.0's and 3.5's elements that PF lacks that makes the game world more... alive somehow to me (as everything in 3.5 "existed" in some metric or another in the world - nothing was so abstract that it didn't interact with other things). It is, so far, my favorite system.

But 4E would make an amazing electronic computer/video game.

Grand Lodge

Stefan Hill wrote:
I would be torn between 1e/2e

I'd choose 2nd edition without hesitation!

Liberty's Edge

Digitalelf wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
I would be torn between 1e/2e
I'd choose 2nd edition without hesitation!

I wish they had kept the full weapon vs armor table - as an option of course. That 1e table, that many seem to avoid, for me made weapons behave as I imagined they too.

S.


I really liked that table too (and still use it in Swords and Wizardry) but I wish they'd given a bonus/penalty vs shields as well as a bonus vs armour type (rather than basing it on AC). That would both make more sense and allow players to make tactical choices based on the description of the world rather than based on numbers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkbridger wrote:
And who's gospel truth is that? Guess I don't agree in the slightest. See how that works?

Snark all you want, but, based on personal experience and popular opinion, I stand by my statement. It's probably the only reason DDO survived the last two years of missteps by Turbine - no one else offers the same experience that DDO combat does.

Darkbridger wrote:
My post was also about tactics games and 2d RPGs, which historically, involved grid based, or grid derived combat. Hence my opinion that 4e is the most friendly rules to that sort of setup.

You'll notice I agreed with that part.

Darkbridger wrote:
Real time combat... I don't feel any D&D rules set is up to that task, but like the previous post, it's an opinion.

DDO, based on the 3.X rules, does feature real time combat. I agree that no other version of D&D, 4E included, is up to that task. Hence the reason I feel 3.X translates best to a video game.


Scott Betts wrote:
Ignoring for the moment that this is an inherently subjective statement, I don't think it's even a very widely-held one. I've played a lot of MMORPGs, and DDO's combat system didn't strike me as particularly inspiring. It was fairly run-of-the-mill. I'm not sure what people would latch onto as evidence of it being the best - unless, of course, your metric for how good a combat system is is how closely it matches D&D 3.5 rules.

Fair enough. Since I'm basing my statement on popular opinion, I should have said, "DDO has the most popular combat system." Mostly because it is real-time and not grid/turn-based. It's fluid and responsive and positioning is generally irrelevant, while a 4E based MMO almost precludes those things.

Scott Betts wrote:
Sebastrd wrote:
mostly owing to the fluid nature of 3.X's combat system.
Scott Betts wrote:
Which it had very little in common with.

While Turbine may have added quite a bit with things like enhancements and PRR, the core of the game is still 3.X. The math behind the system, the classes, skills, etc., are all 3.X. And of course, the Mary Sue NPC's on the Eveningstar side of DDO are classic 3.X Forgotten Realms. :p


Sebastrd wrote:
Fair enough. Since I'm basing my statement on popular opinion, I should have said, "DDO has the most popular combat system."

Popular opinion? Whose popular opinion? Do you have a source for that?

Sovereign Court

Count me in the DDO has the best combat camp. Though popular? Yeah I am not sure about that one. I thought everyone hated DDO.

Liberty's Edge

Pan wrote:
Count me in the DDO has the best combat camp. Though popular? Yeah I am not sure about that one. I thought everyone hated DDO.

Not sure about hate, but DDO just isn't as pretty as WoW. due to current limitations in graphics the cartoon style of WoW looks better than the 'realistic' look of DDO.


Pan wrote:
Count me in the DDO has the best combat camp. Though popular? Yeah I am not sure about that one. I thought everyone hated DDO.

I'm not claiming DDO is popular, just that DDO's combat is. Among those that have tried DDO, "best combat" is always mentioned as one of the few bright spots.

Sovereign Court

Stefan Hill wrote:
Pan wrote:
Count me in the DDO has the best combat camp. Though popular? Yeah I am not sure about that one. I thought everyone hated DDO.
Not sure about hate, but DDO just isn't as pretty as WoW. due to current limitations in graphics the cartoon style of WoW looks better than the 'realistic' look of DDO.

Its been years since I tried WoW but the combat and graphics turned me off. I ran DDO and it looked great until about two years ago. Mostly it was the people that kept me around but the game play certainly didn't hurt. I don't think I could ever adapt to a point, click, watch combat game. Hell I could barely play Dragonage but it ultimately kept me going even with hybrid turn based combat.


Zardnaar wrote:
Lol Lokiare is here now.

Seems like a much friendlier environment.


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Another aspect that needs to be considered is that many game stores have a large stock of 4E material just sitting there and not moving. This happened fairly early into 4E's lifecycle, and I question how much these bookstores, particularly the ones focused on Comics/RPGs are willing to take such a risk again. I do understand that this is not universal, but in my personal experience, it is pretty common.

Can we get a source on this speculation? From what I've seen 4E beat out several PF products on best seller lists. As far as I know it didn't meet Hasbro sales standards and was discontinued because PF had a spike where they beat them for a few months.


Pan wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

...Or so terribad that it drags the D&D name into obscurity?

Nah, I think the first is naive optimism and the second is misguided alarmism.

You forgot the third option: the system is sound in places, but horribul brand management and marketing decisions drag it into oblivion.

You know, like it happened with 4E :P

I think 5e will be...the D&D edition. Not because it'll exemplify the game's soul or whatever, but because it won't be really remarkable or memorable to most of us. Those of us into game rules will remember it as "That time they tried that advantage thing, and 'bounded accuracy'...haha, remember how that turned out?" Gamers who happen to grow up when 5e is on the shelves will remember it as their first edition, but to most D&D fans it'll be just another edition.
Man I have been waiting for over 20 years for bounded accuracy. Why does it have to be implemented into the edition nobody is going to remember? :(

Bounded accuracy has been implemented in most editions of D&D. 3E and 4E are the first editions without it. According to the developers "bounded accuracy" simply means monsters AC and attack bonuses won't scale with character level. 2E did that in spades. They had monsters that were easy to hit at mid to high level but were still a challenge because they had a sack of hp or had save or die abilities.

So you can go play 2E, it has plenty of "bounded accuracy".


R_Chance wrote:
We started with miniatures in 1974. We had been playing Chainmail w. fantasy for a while (That's how I started my campaign world). Using miniatures was natural. We've never played without them. No matter the rules edition, miniatures lay out the situation making it clear to everyone what the situation is and save a lot of arguments that would arise about who is where / who can do what / who can see what / who will be effected by "X". Without DM fiat. It may take a bit of time to set up, but I think it saves more in discussion / explanation / argument. And they look cool :)

This is my experience also. We used minis in 2E (my first edition) and have used them ever since. Whenever I play in a game without minis, everyone asking the DM hundreds of questions about placement and how many can I get in this spell area and things like that. It ends up breaking me out of the story just as much if not more than a battle mat and miniatures...


Stefan Hill wrote:
R_Chance wrote:
Movement in 0E and 1E was measured in inches.

You can add 2e to that also. While using the inch symbol (") this was representing 10 feet indoors and 10 yards outside. True 'measured' combat enshrined in the rules were not in 1e, completely removed in 2e, brought to life in 3e, codified in 3.5e, and taken to the nth degree in 4e.

I too have played a lot of wargaming which is why I am so against needing miniatures in my 'Products of the Imagination' games...

D&DN will likely be awful if they make a hybrid combat ruleset. Having a book like the 3e/3.5e miniatures handbook to appease the wargaming crowd would be my prefered option. Having said that 2e Warhammer Fantasy RPG did pretty good job of having both styles of play in one book.

S.

Sadly I've already explained how they could do this successfully on their own forums. they simply don't listen to feedback.

The idea went something like this:

Distances are melee, short, long, too-far. In theater of the mind combat you can easily know if someone is in melee, short, long range, or too-far. On a grid it translates to melee (1 or 2 squares), short (2-10 squares), long (11-20) squares, and anything past 20 squares is considered too far (20 squares being 100'). Very simple works with both and is easy to remember.


Sebastrd wrote:
I'm not claiming DDO is popular, just that DDO's combat is. Among those that have tried DDO, "best combat" is always mentioned as one of the few bright spots.

I've played DDO. The combat was not a bright spot among MMOs for me. I know plenty of Warcraft players that prefer that. I know plenty of GW2 players that prefer that. Pick an MMO and I can find people that play it and have tried DDO that will disagree with you. I know a lot of table top D&D players that say ToEE was the purest form of D&D on a computer, ever and everything else is/was a "bastardization" of the system it was based on. It's a pretty big leap of logic to go from "always mentioned as one of the few bright spots" to "literally, the best combat of any MMO". Let's agree that personal opinion and views based on anectodtes and hearsay are exactly that. Unless you're claiming to have/had access to the entire mass of DDO player exit data (and even then I highly doubt that sample represents a majority of MMO players), I see nothing supporting that supposition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lokiare wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
R_Chance wrote:
Movement in 0E and 1E was measured in inches.

You can add 2e to that also. While using the inch symbol (") this was representing 10 feet indoors and 10 yards outside. True 'measured' combat enshrined in the rules were not in 1e, completely removed in 2e, brought to life in 3e, codified in 3.5e, and taken to the nth degree in 4e.

I too have played a lot of wargaming which is why I am so against needing miniatures in my 'Products of the Imagination' games...

D&DN will likely be awful if they make a hybrid combat ruleset. Having a book like the 3e/3.5e miniatures handbook to appease the wargaming crowd would be my prefered option. Having said that 2e Warhammer Fantasy RPG did pretty good job of having both styles of play in one book.

S.

Sadly I've already explained how they could do this successfully on their own forums. they simply don't listen to feedback.

The idea went something like this:

Distances are melee, short, long, too-far. In theater of the mind combat you can easily know if someone is in melee, short, long range, or too-far. On a grid it translates to melee (1 or 2 squares), short (2-10 squares), long (11-20) squares, and anything past 20 squares is considered too far (20 squares being 100'). Very simple works with both and is easy to remember.

See: The first iteration of the game "Traveller"


Terquem wrote:
lokiare wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
R_Chance wrote:
Movement in 0E and 1E was measured in inches.

You can add 2e to that also. While using the inch symbol (") this was representing 10 feet indoors and 10 yards outside. True 'measured' combat enshrined in the rules were not in 1e, completely removed in 2e, brought to life in 3e, codified in 3.5e, and taken to the nth degree in 4e.

I too have played a lot of wargaming which is why I am so against needing miniatures in my 'Products of the Imagination' games...

D&DN will likely be awful if they make a hybrid combat ruleset. Having a book like the 3e/3.5e miniatures handbook to appease the wargaming crowd would be my prefered option. Having said that 2e Warhammer Fantasy RPG did pretty good job of having both styles of play in one book.

S.

Sadly I've already explained how they could do this successfully on their own forums. they simply don't listen to feedback.

The idea went something like this:

Distances are melee, short, long, too-far. In theater of the mind combat you can easily know if someone is in melee, short, long range, or too-far. On a grid it translates to melee (1 or 2 squares), short (2-10 squares), long (11-20) squares, and anything past 20 squares is considered too far (20 squares being 100'). Very simple works with both and is easy to remember.

See: The first iteration of the game "Traveller"

That's what I thought when I read that post. The range bands were for play without miniatures. I preferred the use of counters with the 1/2" grid (1/2" = 1.5 meters) that came out with Snapshot / Azhanti High Lightning... but it certainly provided a system that could be played with / without miniatures.

Shadow Lodge

lokiare wrote:
Can we get a source on this speculation? From what I've seen 4E beat out several PF products on best seller lists. As far as I know it didn't meet Hasbro sales standards and was discontinued because PF had a spike where they beat them for a few months.

Like I said, it's mostly my personal experience, and may not be universal. I like to talk to game store owners and employees about things like that. Sometimes if I'm lucky, they have older books still in the back or at another location that I like to pick up. Mostly original WoD stuff, Ravenloft or Dragonlance material. To my knowledge, WotC has also neglected to show their actual sales on 4E, but a pretty unanimous response from many game stores was that outside of a few products,(usually as they first came out only, too), a lot of times the material just didn't move.

Shadow Lodge

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
To my knowledge, WotC has also neglected to show their actual sales on 4E

Paizo doesn't release their sales info either.


Darkbridger wrote:
Let's agree that personal opinion and views based on anectodtes and hearsay are exactly that. Unless you're claiming to have/had access to the entire mass of DDO player exit data (and even then I highly doubt that sample represents a majority of MMO players), I see nothing supporting that supposition.

Fair enough. Let's just say my speculative and unsupported opinion disagrees with your speculative and unsupported opinion and leave it at that.

I'm tired of the constant "4E translates best to a video game" malarkey as if it's a) objective fact and b) relevant in the slightest.


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
To my knowledge, WotC has also neglected to show their actual sales on 4E,

The only reliable figures (verified experimentally) we have on either of the Big Two is that WotC's D&D Insider subscription service has over 86,000 active subscribers. Assuming an $8/month subscription average, D&D Insider alone is responsible for upwards of $8 million in revenue annually. It has probably brought in more than $30 million over the course of D&D, or the equivalent of selling a million Dungeon Master's Guide copies (without having to pay the retailer's/distributor's cut).


Digitalelf wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
I would be torn between 1e/2e
I'd choose 2nd edition without hesitation!

+1


Scott Betts wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
To my knowledge, WotC has also neglected to show their actual sales on 4E,
The only reliable figures (verified experimentally) we have on either of the Big Two is that WotC's D&D Insider subscription service has over 86,000 active subscribers. Assuming an $8/month subscription average, D&D Insider alone is responsible for upwards of $8 million in revenue annually. It has probably brought in more than $30 million over the course of D&D, or the equivalent of selling a million Dungeon Master's Guide copies.

I think the thousandish AP charter subscribers (14x72x1000+=just over a million) probably counts as a reliable figure/datapoint.

It's probably not as significant a proportion of revenue as the DDI subscription, but there are the odd snippets of information around.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
To my knowledge, WotC has also neglected to show their actual sales on 4E,
The only reliable figures (verified experimentally) we have on either of the Big Two is that WotC's D&D Insider subscription service has over 86,000 active subscribers. Assuming an $8/month subscription average, D&D Insider alone is responsible for upwards of $8 million in revenue annually. It has probably brought in more than $30 million over the course of D&D, or the equivalent of selling a million Dungeon Master's Guide copies.

I think the thousandish AP charter subscribers (14x72x1000+=just over a million) probably counts as a reliable figure/datapoint.

It's probably not as significant a proportion of revenue as the DDI subscription, but there are the odd snippets of information around.

Ah, interesting, I didn't realize you could look up the number of subscribers.


You cant. That figure (1072 from memory) was from Lisa's blogs last year. That's the number of people who were subscribed at issue 1 and who were still subscribed near the end of last year. (I'm speculating that it has not dropped much in the last year and rounded down to a thousand, in case that assumption is incorrect).

It's an extreme lower bound on AP sales (ignoring everyone who subscribed from issue 2 onwards, plus any one-off sales) - not really very relevant in estimating 'how much money have paizo made' (which I dont particularly care about) but it's indicative of the scale of the business.


Steve Geddes wrote:

You cant. That figure (1072 from memory) was from Lisa's blogs last year. That's the number of people who were subscribed at issue 1 and who were still subscribed near the end of last year. (I'm speculating that it has not dropped much in the last year and rounded down to a thousand, in case that assumption is incorrect).

It's an extreme lower bound on AP sales (ignoring everyone who subscribed from issue 2 onwards, plus any one-off sales) - not really very relevant in estimating 'how much money have paizo made' (which I dont particularly care about) but it's indicative of the scale of the business.

It's a neat figure nonetheless.


Yeah, and does provide some kind of "anchor point" for generating models/estimates of the industry (no doubt grossly inaccurate but still better than actual work).


Latest packet is out. Seems to be BECMI inspired with some 3rd and 4th ed elements layered on top. Looks kinda kewl if you like simple.


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
lokiare wrote:
Can we get a source on this speculation? From what I've seen 4E beat out several PF products on best seller lists. As far as I know it didn't meet Hasbro sales standards and was discontinued because PF had a spike where they beat them for a few months.
Like I said, it's mostly my personal experience, and may not be universal. I like to talk to game store owners and employees about things like that. Sometimes if I'm lucky, they have older books still in the back or at another location that I like to pick up. Mostly original WoD stuff, Ravenloft or Dragonlance material. To my knowledge, WotC has also neglected to show their actual sales on 4E, but a pretty unanimous response from many game stores was that outside of a few products,(usually as they first came out only, too), a lot of times the material just didn't move.

Actually if you have a little money, you can check the IcV reports and see that Pathfinder only beat 4E for a few months before Essentials came out and then 4E was on top again. So your experience is probably regional and not universal.


lokiare wrote:

Bounded accuracy has been implemented in most editions of D&D. 3E and 4E are the first editions without it. According to the developers "bounded accuracy" simply means monsters AC and attack bonuses won't scale with character level. 2E did that in spades. They had monsters that were easy to hit at mid to high level but were still a challenge because they had a sack of hp or had save or die abilities.

So you can go play 2E, it has plenty of "bounded accuracy".

Regardless of whatever beginnings it has in earlier editions, bounded accuracy with respect to 5e is shorthand for 'Level bonuses are few and far between, but it's a free-for-all for miscellaneous bonuses!' Unless the 5e team has waffled significantly with their design goals since the last time I checked. As this is a 5e discussion, I thought it was pretty clear that we were discussing BA with respect to 5e.

And in any case, my sentiment stands: I'll eat my boots if the 5e team doesn't royally mangle BA.

251 to 300 of 326 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / D&DNext - D&D 5th edition, a light version of PF in my humble opinion. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.