Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/13 16:45:44
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
Grizzled MkII Monster Veteran
Toronto, Ontario
|
I'm actually not playing any D&D these days. My AD&D, 3E and 4E books all sit on the shelf, unused for the time being. It'd be nice to play regularly again, but at this point I mostly keep vaguely abreast of developments out of curiosity.
Point being, the issues presented may exist in 3E, but "roll save or die/go find something else to do" existed in 2E. Casters surpassing martial classes definitely existed in earlier editions (at first level a wizard should rightfully be scared of a common housecat, by 5th or 6th they're flinging fireballs to wipe out small armies, not too many levels later they're tearing at the fabric of time, space and reality to bend it to their will, the Fighter and Rogue hope to get an extra +1 to their sword, etc).
Regardless of where the exact inspiration comes from, it doesn't change how they have embraced what I feel are flawed or outdated mechanics.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/13 16:53:15
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/13 17:00:51
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
Manchu wrote:As far as I can tell, D&D Next completely accepts the common sense of 2000.
Sounds like we're on the same page, more-or-less. (at least with terms.)
Next seems to wobble back and forth between the extremes of this. Some playtest docs were loose on some topics in interesting ways: for example, one revision of skills was intentionally broad. (Example: You've got a Sailor/Pirate/Dinghy Captain Background/Edge/Feat/Whatever. You get a standard 'proficient' bonus to any skill checks you can convince the GM are relevant. Climbing rigging? You're proficient! Climbing a rope? Sure, it's close. Climbing a sheer marble wall? Ha-ha! No bonus for you. The Sailing proficiency was broad, in that it also included basic ship handling, maintenance of relevant tools, navigation at sea... Whatever the payer and GM could make relevant. Seemed like a nice idea, definitely needed the math worked out (Should proficient be a +2? What if you have two overlapping backgrounds, is that +4? +3?) but clean...
However, the community didn't seem to like this, so we're back to another iteration of 3rd style skills, it appears. Not thrilled: one annoyance was spending points in 3.0 was never a favorite part. You generally had 1-2 'Class' skills (Religion/Concentration for Clerics, SpellCraft/Concentration for wizards, tons for thieves, not sure for Fighters) and the essentials like spot along with maybe 1 or 2 'background'/'utility' skills. You dumped points in these, which was complicated by the need to keep in mind that each class had different class skills, so spending points when taking a level of rogue was different from spending points as a wizard.
I much preferred the 4e version, where you got a blanket +5 to skills you knew.
The Next idea, above, sounded really interesting. However, last i heard it was thrown out as skills are now a 'modular element, which means they aren't usable for balance consideration (thus the Thief needs to be balanced as if there's no skills...) and the skills system is back to a big ugly list.
I like the determinism idea, but I want the freedom of making stuff up as well. Taking the Next idea above and merging it with some guidelines seemed like a good compromise. If there's an appendix that says that Swimming is always a Strength check, and the following skill background should generally apply, that's fine.
|
Working on someting you'll either love or hate. Hopefully to be revealed by November.
Play the games that make you happy. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/13 17:03:36
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
@Forar Casters roundly surpassed non-casters in 3/3.5 ... in fact, you might call this one of the hallmarks of the system. Fourth "fixed" this by basically letting everyone do magic in the form of at-will/encounter'daily powers. Can you give me an example of a save or die mechanic in D&D Next? As a side note, save or die gets a lot of flak because people misunderstand it. They think it's a malignant tool inflicted on innocent PCs by evil GMs when in fact it's a beneficent tool designed by patient DMs putting up with asinine PCs. I was playing S&W White Box recently and this one player was being a total asshat, continuously running ahead in the dungeon with basically zero caution. So he fell head-first into a pit trap full of poisoned spikes. Now, the moron should have just died then and there. I mean, it's as simple as falling onto a bed of poisoned spikes. But I let him take a save. If he had failed the save, he'd have died. But if he had just been putting some, any effort into the game, he would have easily found and avoided the trap (like the rest of the party). So giving him the save was being nice. Automatically Appended Next Post: @Balance
The playtest materials I read last night didn't have anything to say about skills, except as a matter of character backgrounds ... which sounded something like you described with the sailor example.
So I was like, what's the rogue going to do? Then I saw the Expertise Die, which the rogue gets to roll in addition to his d20 when making any Dex check to perform a task that involves being nimble, quick-on-yer-feet, roguish.
So that plus the background thing (i.e., something similar to 4E skills) makes me totally happy.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/08/13 17:08:20
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/13 17:59:57
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
Yeah, skills have gone through a lot of changes. It sounds like it's a "firm list' the last I saw, but I could be wrong. Getting ready for Gen Con, but I don't think I'll make it to any WotC events this year as I'm working the show full-time.
|
Working on someting you'll either love or hate. Hopefully to be revealed by November.
Play the games that make you happy. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/13 18:05:41
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Like I said, there is no mention of skills in any of the playtest materials (dated 8/2/2013) I downloaded and read yesterday. You've got ability checks (closest thing to "old school" D&D here), "lores" associated with a backgrounds, and expertise dice for rogues.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/13 18:53:25
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
Grizzled MkII Monster Veteran
Toronto, Ontario
|
Manchu wrote:@Forar
Casters roundly surpassed non-casters in 3/3.5 ... in fact, you might call this one of the hallmarks of the system. Fourth "fixed" this by basically letting everyone do magic in the form of at-will/encounter'daily powers.
Right, and it's terrible game design for a group based game, imo. Of course, without everyone playing the exact same character, there will always be imbalances (and even with identical characters, some players with greater experience and/or creativity will use those powers/weapons/gear in different or better ways than others), but the vast disparity between the two types in AD&D and 3E is not something that I want in my 'playing fantasy elves and make believe dragons', and introducing it intentionally is absurd, to me.
Can you give me an example of a save or die mechanic in D&D Next?
I really want to be snarky and just link to the Magic list from the Next playtest packet. >.>
Hold Monster, Hold Person, Harm, Sleep, Charm, Polymorph, Power Word: Kill, etc, etc.
As a side note, save or die gets a lot of flak because people misunderstand it. They think it's a malignant tool inflicted on innocent PCs by evil GMs when in fact it's a beneficent tool designed by patient DMs putting up with asinine PCs.
I think it's neither. I think designing a game with "I Win Buttons" is very tricky. I think handing them out unevenly between characters is even more problematic. Yes, many have limitations in place (hit dice, hit points, restrictions on species, alignment, etc), but the result is just a construct in place to let those who have access to them be 'good, but not too good', which a smart player will simply work to bypass (right tool for the right job, style).
High level 3E play in particular could become troublesome with enhanced save DC effects and preparatory spells, counter spells, counter counter spells, etc, but AD&D hit its own snags with the casters being able to basically turn on cheat codes for the game that in turn required Anti Magic Fields and any number of absurd "ECM/ECCM/ECCCM/ECCCCM" arms races to challenge them, and both (in my experience) suffered from issues with the low levels having a measure of balanced play, before the casters no longer needed the 'meat shield' lineup to protect them.
Or hell, the 3E Cleric could just cast a few buffs and 'out-fighter the fighter'. Why do we keep that guy around again, anyway? ;-)
While imperfect, the broadening of every class gaining access to unique abilities that they had to manage as resources (At Will/Encounter/Daily) didn't break my immersion in the least, and permitted the game to be designed without applying a level of 'realism' to one half of the party while the others were busy 'peeking behind the curtains of creation' as it were.
And I say this as someone who spent more years than he'd care to discuss playing Rifts, a game to which "inter party balance" is so foreign a concept many players will cross themselves and run screaming from the room if confronted by it.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/13 20:08:03
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Okay, I was having trouble understanding your viewpoint before but now I'm totally lost. You're saying 3E is too fragile (I agree) ... while playing Rifts? And admitting the hypocrisy? I sincerely don't know what point you're trying to make. Broken (breakable) games can still be fun? I mean, I'd agree with that. I agree that everyone should play games in good faith, which means not trying to break them, and that DMs in particular should be able to say "no, that's ridiculous." The trouble I had with 4E powers -- or rather the trouble my players had (since I only ever DMed 4E; and loved every minute) -- is that it feels like every choice comes off a menu. Whatever the reality, 3E did not feel this way. One of my players expressed this very clearly for me, saying she felt like anyone could sit down at our table and play her 4E character as well as she could. While the point is arguable as expressed for a number of reasons, I understand and agree with the sentiment. As to this talk about save or die, which seems to really be about not liking magic, what can I say? What can anyone say? Magic is not just another sword swing, at least as I understand it in fantasy RPGs. There's the physical laws of the game setting and then there's magic, which breaks them. Now the counterargument is that magic in one of the deterministic games, like 3.5 for example, is just another layer of physical law. I think that's the approach that 4E takes. Third edition, however, strikes me as much more ambiguous on this point. In any case, if magic does let characters bend and break the physical laws of reality then players who can do so are going to be in some sense at an advantage over those who cannot. I just don't see it as problematic, given that anyone can play a mage in D&D Next. "But I want to play a fighter" is not a good counterargument. If you want to play a fighter then you want to play a character without abilities that bend/break the laws of reality. If you want to play a fighter that does do that, then multiclass, and if that's still not enough ... well, now we're in the territory of just wanting to play a different game where fighters are simultaneously mages. Fair enough but wanting to play another game is hardly a review of the game to hand. Getting back to reviewing 3E, the issue is not that it encouraged everyone to play casters one way or another but that it pretended non-casters were just as relevant. Let's go back to the old school for a moment. Yes, high level wizards could roll out more damage than high level fighters. But there was no guarantee either fighters or wizards would ever survive to high levels. If anything, the fighters had a better shot. Now, back to 3E: there is an implicit guarantee of survivability ... so we have to evaluate the classes over 20+ levels and in that scope, turns out just like blondes casters really do have more fun. So where does that leave Next? Seems like combat needs a more lethal edge, otherwise we're right back to casters being better (3E) or everyone being equally bland (4E).
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/13 20:16:43
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/13 20:50:56
Subject: Re:The current state of D&D
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Kamloops, BC
|
I'm not sure I agree with the "everyone being equally bland" statement when referring to 4e as I thought 4e allowed non-magic oriented classes more options (therefore making them less bland) in combat, although in doing so they have also limited magic oriented classes more
than their 3/3.5e equivalents so that everyone has roughly the same amount of options.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/13 21:02:49
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
I didn't meant bland in the sense of not having options but rather that 4E's assumption is PCs "choose from this menu of options." In 4E, my PC can do X, Y, or Z on a given turn. When I play older editions, I don't need look at the menu (i.e., my character sheet); instead, I describe what my character does and the DM tells me what to roll. It's true, there can be a fair bit of "menu reading" in Third Edition (especially regarding feats and skills) but the only characters that really must read the menu are casters. So in 4E, where every power is a kind of magic, everyone reads from the menu. This kind of approach doesn't really exercise the strengths of table top RPGs -- but I can see how it fits into the imaginations of people used to playing video games.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/08/13 21:11:00
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/13 21:03:55
Subject: Re:The current state of D&D
|
 |
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God
Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways
|
Cheesecat wrote:I'm not sure I agree with the "everyone being equally bland" statement when referring to 4e as I thought 4e allowed non-magic oriented classes more options (therefore making them less bland) in combat, although in doing so they have also limited magic oriented classes more
than their 3/3.5e equivalents so that everyone has roughly the same amount of options.
I only played a couple of sessions of 4E but I have to say that "everyone is a mage now!" did make magic less special, and also made having different classes seem kind of pointless since everyone could pretty much do the same things, even if the feats/stats were given different names.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/13 21:15:38
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Kamloops, BC
|
Manchu wrote:I didn't meant bland in the sense of not having options but rather that 4E's assumption is PCs "choose from this menu of options." In 4E, my PC can do X, Y, or Z on a given turn. When I play older editions, I don't need look at the menu (i.e., my character sheet); instead, I describe what my character does and the DM tells me what to roll. It's true, there can be a fair bit of "menu reading" in Third Edition (especially regarding feats and skills) but the only characters that really must read the menu are casters. So in 4E, where every power is a kind of magic, everyone reads from the menu. This kind of approach doesn't really exercise the strengths of table top RPGs -- but I can see how it fits into the imaginations of people used to playing video games.
OK thanks for the clarification.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/13 21:18:43
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Thanks for asking for clarification. I think about this stuff a lot and in my own head it's very clear. The corresponding point is, when I talk to other people about this, I unintentionally write things that come off as confusing. For me, the most basic point of analysis when it comes to D&D is the difference between editions that assume the DM will make constant rules calls and editions that assume the players will look up the rules in the book.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/13 21:20:41
Subject: Re:The current state of D&D
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Kamloops, BC
|
SilverMK2 wrote: Cheesecat wrote:I'm not sure I agree with the "everyone being equally bland" statement when referring to 4e as I thought 4e allowed non-magic oriented classes more options (therefore making them less bland) in combat, although in doing so they have also limited magic oriented classes more
than their 3/3.5e equivalents so that everyone has roughly the same amount of options.
I only played a couple of sessions of 4E but I have to say that "everyone is a mage now!" did make magic less special, and also made having different classes seem kind of pointless since everyone could pretty much do the same things, even if the feats/stats were given different names.
That's simply untrue wizards don't have the right stats and options in order to make for a good tanks class, even if you invest in all the highest damage options as a fighter strikers like rogues, rangers, barbarians, etc will still out damage you, psions have access to lots of telepathic and
telekinetic powers where as many other classes don't, Druids are one of the few classes that can shape-shift, etc, etc.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/13 21:33:29
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
Gargantuan Gargant
|
Basic to advanced, little adjustment.
AD&D to 2nd Ed, little adjustment.
2E to 3E, Woohoo Feats !!!
3E to 4E, wait what ? Healing surges ?
4E has the most amount of transition involved for players of previous editions. It's entirely playable and enjoyable, but at times feels like a completely different game, if you were used to playing any of the previous editions.
From reading the develoment blogs, one of the things designers of 4E regret, and wished they ahd doen differently, is that the more of the class powers should have been a unified list, across classes, similar to how feats are handled.
An attack that does x1 damage and targets Reflex, could be available to rogues, rangers with dex 15, and fighters with dex 15, etc... instead of all three classes having powers that do something remarkabely similat, with 3 different names, in 3 different books.
A theoretical attack "haymaker" useable once per encounter, targets AC, does double damage, could be usable to any class, etc...
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/13 21:34:36
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Cheesecat wrote:wizards don't have the right stats and options in order to make for a good tanks class
It's not that everyone could do the same things. One thing 4E was pretty good about was limiting every class to a certain role: tank, DPS, buff, control. I think what SilverMK2 was getting at, or at least what I would say is, the traditional play style of casters (what I call "menu reading") suddenly became every class's play style thanks to the powers system. adamsouza wrote:4E has the most amount of transition involved for players of previous editions.
I really, really disagree. I think the biggest difference was between AD&D 2E and Third/3.5 ... 3.5 and 4E share a lot of things in common. Outside of the powers system, I daresay 4E is really just an improvement on 3.5 TBH. And I think WotC is currently trying to do exactly that, make an improved version of 3.5, which does indeed mean doing some things more simply and leaving more up to the particular gaming group rather than making everything a matter of the rule book.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/08/13 21:39:32
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/13 21:47:40
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
I would love to see WotC realize that they need to focus on D&D as doing things online gaming can't... Which might mean stepping back from determinism a bit. Early previews of Next seemed to go in this direction.
I ran a lot of 2nd Edition when I was in middle/high school. Had a lot of fun, no argument there. But I remember I wanted to encourage more of what is now called 'stunting' (I.E. doing interesting stuff) but found that players expected stunts to be reliable. I kind of think both sides of the player/GM divide need to accept that getting to play in a game where PCs can do neat stuff like swing over a pit on ropes, knock an artifact from the wielder's hand, etc. have to realize that this stuff is very institutional... And GMs should be encouraged to make 'stunts' easy if it's novel and fits the game's tone.
Next is a bit better for this than 4e, I think. I feel it can't decide where it wants to go in so many things, though.
In my opinion 3rd was a heavily cleaned up version of 2nd, and a big change, but nowhere near as big as 4th... Mainly because of going to the very formal 'powers' paradigm. Automatically Appended Next Post: Hm. Reading around today and it sounds like Next might see a more formal skill system return on the next pass.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/13 21:51:21
Working on someting you'll either love or hate. Hopefully to be revealed by November.
Play the games that make you happy. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/13 21:56:11
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Well, it's probably a matter of perspective.
If you're looking at this as the space between Player's Option: Skills and Powers in 1995 and the Third Edition PHB in 2000 -- yeah I can see how that looks very limited.
But I think you have to consider the same when it comes to the differences between 3.5 and Fourth Edition. Look at it as the space between Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords in 2006 or Star Wars Saga Edition in 2007 and the Fourth Edition PHB in 2007 and there is even less difference than between Player's Option and the 3.0 PHB. Automatically Appended Next Post: Balance wrote:
Hm. Reading around today and it sounds like Next might see a more formal skill system return on the next pass.
You mean as an "Advanced" component?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/13 21:56:45
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/13 22:00:44
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Kamloops, BC
|
Manchu wrote: Cheesecat wrote:wizards don't have the right stats and options in order to make for a good tanks class
It's not that everyone could do the same things. One thing 4E was pretty good about was limiting every class to a certain role: tank, DPS, buff, control. I think what SilverMK2 was getting at, or at least what I would say is, the traditional play style of casters (what I call "menu reading") suddenly became every class's play style thanks to the powers system.
OK, that make more sense to me and I agree about the role thing although I tend to think the roles was a good idea as it gave every party member a purpose in combat.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/13 22:05:23
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Yeah, I found that with 3.5 my players tended to be prima donnas: they seemed to feel like if they could not do everything then they could not do anything. This was tricky because 3.5 also encourages you to min/max the crap out of some aspect of your character. When they started playing 4E, they were always just on the verge of TPK because they didn't know how to work together. You should have seen them when they figured it out. It was amazing -- we had been playing D&D together for over a year but they had almost never thought about simply working together. In 3.5, it had been more about "and here's my scene where I show off my super powers" or, more depressingly, "my super powers are better than yours."
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/13 22:05:44
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/13 23:25:28
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
Grizzled MkII Monster Veteran
Toronto, Ontario
|
Manchu wrote:You're saying 3E is too fragile (I agree) ... while playing Rifts? And admitting the hypocrisy? I sincerely don't know what point you're trying to make. Broken (breakable) games can still be fun? I mean, I'd agree with that. I agree that everyone should play games in good faith, which means not trying to break them, and that DMs in particular should be able to say "no, that's ridiculous." Bwah? The average Rifts character at level 1 packs more firepower than a battleship and requires dedicated anti-tank weaponry to even phase. I have no idea how you'd compare the two as though Rifts characters were 'fragile' unless the DM put some significant gear/ability/class/race restrictions in place. In AD&D/3E a Magic User could start with a couple HP and an AC that was more the punchline to a joke than any sort of actual protection, (that it is still better than Rifts balance is more of a condemnation of Rifts than anything), and the disparity that occurs across the weeks and months of play isn't nearly as intrinsic to the system in Rifts as it is in 2E/3E. In Rifts, the disparity is because one person is in Power Armour, the other is a Werejaguar Warlock with a Rune Weapon, and the other member is a master Psychic vagabond with a Colt 45 and a bottle of Colt 45. In 2E/3E D&D, the disparity is because one person wanted to be a martial class, and the other casts spells. I have no idea how you get 'hypocrisy' out of that statement. They are wildly different systems. The trouble I had with 4E powers -- or rather the trouble my players had (since I only ever DMed 4E; and loved every minute) -- is that it feels like every choice comes off a menu. Whatever the reality, 3E did not feel this way. One of my players expressed this very clearly for me, saying she felt like anyone could sit down at our table and play her 4E character as well as she could. While the point is arguable as expressed for a number of reasons, I understand and agree with the sentiment. vOv That may be the case, but personally I liked that compared to 3E (which has actual, admitted by the designers 'traps' in character creation, such as detrimentally sub-optimal feat choices, feat chains and prestige requirements that require character plotting potentially all the way back to level 1), it was almost difficult to make a 'bad' 4E character. Sure, there was still plenty of room for optimization and personalization (especially when hybrids and multiclasses are introduced). One of my favourite characters was a Dragonborn Paladin/Cleric hybrid who filled both the Leader and Defender roles for my short staffed party with minimal DM effort necessary to tweak the encounters. In any case, if magic does let characters bend and break the physical laws of reality then players who can do so are going to be in some sense at an advantage over those who cannot. I just don't see it as problematic, given that anyone can play a mage in D&D Next. "But I want to play a fighter" is not a good counterargument. If you want to play a fighter then you want to play a character without abilities that bend/break the laws of reality. If you want to play a fighter that does do that, then multiclass, and if that's still not enough ... well, now we're in the territory of just wanting to play a different game where fighters are simultaneously mages. Fair enough but wanting to play another game is hardly a review of the game to hand. Waitwhat? Yeah, no. If the Cleric can raise the dead and the Wizard can teleport the party across time, space and dimensions, the Fighter being able to hit a 50 foot dragon so hard it falls over, or the Ranger being able to put an arrow through 5 feet of orcs doesn't phase me at all. I have utterly no problem suspending my disbelief enough for such feats, or the Rogue running up a water fall or the Avenger teleporting to her target across a chasm, whatever. It's all fantasy make believe, but broadening the classes that can do 'crazy awesome stuff' like 4E did suited me and my group just fine, and a return to "the Wizard blows up 20 orcs, the Fighter swings his sword" isn't something I relish. That's the direction of Next. I've seen better design for me and my crew. I get that people like that sort of thing (it's my understanding Pathfinder is making money hand over fist with what is basically D&D 3.75), but I do not see how you can tell me with a straight face that I have unrealistic expectations for a game system when apparently we've both had extensive 4E experiences. That game exists. It's an edition of D&D. I am disappointed that what is essentially 5E is ignoring what I felt was a perk of a well balanced class system. Getting back to reviewing 3E, the issue is not that it encouraged everyone to play casters one way or another but that it pretended non-casters were just as relevant. Let's go back to the old school for a moment. Yes, high level wizards could roll out more damage than high level fighters. But there was no guarantee either fighters or wizards would ever survive to high levels. If anything, the fighters had a better shot. Now, back to 3E: there is an implicit guarantee of survivability ... so we have to evaluate the classes over 20+ levels and in that scope, turns out just like blondes casters really do have more fun. So where does that leave Next? Seems like combat needs a more lethal edge, otherwise we're right back to casters being better (3E) or everyone being equally bland (4E). Your idea of "bland" is my idea of awesome. Different strokes. Have you played 5E? Watched the recorded game sessions? Read a play by post or two? I've done the latter two, and as it stands I doubt I'll be buying the PHB/ DMG/ MM books like I find I often do with the system. Basically, from the research I've done, 5E isn't for me. It's aimed at other players with different views on what makes good game design and an enjoyable game experience. I totally respect that this doesn't make their views 'bad', merely different. But it also doesn't mean my critique is being crafted from whole cloth.
|
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2013/08/14 00:01:39
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/14 05:21:46
Subject: Re:The current state of D&D
|
 |
Gargantuan Gargant
|
I find it amusing that people keep throwing out that spellcasters were the ubermench of 3E. In my personal experience the party thief, and the damn elf archer, always had enough feats and magic items to easily rival the party wizard at any level. Admitedly, the party wizard was the guy making all their magical gear, and pocketing a huge profit doing it, but the archer lobbing volleys of flaming, dragonbane arrows always did seem to kill more than the wizard. The thief who goes first, draws his weapon for free, and sneak attacks you in the front, was responsible for more carnage than the wizard could ever muster.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/14 05:29:21
Subject: Re:The current state of D&D
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Okay.... I'm from the era of the birth of Rpg's. I still do my research in this field as I have a few IP's that I might exercise before Lucifer drags me to hell.
That saying I would recommend not purchasing any 5th ED D&D Product for now. Warning bells went off when Monti Cook left the designing crew due to differences between himself and WotC management.
Now I like Pathfinder. I would look there first before making any serious monetary purchases.
Adam
|
Adam's Motto: Paint, Create, Play, but above all, have fun. -and for something silly below-
"We are the Ultramodrines, And We Shall Fear No Trolls. bear this USR with pride".
Also, how does one apply to be a member of the Ultramodrines? Are harsh trials involved, ones that would test my faith as a wargamer and resolve as a geek?
You must recite every rule of Dakka Dakka. BACKWARDS.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/14 14:49:18
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
@Forar: You've mischaracterized the parts of my post you didn't ignore. As per my usage throughout this thread, "fragile" means that the system's idea of balance is easily undermined, i.e., broken. I never claimed you had unrealistic expectations of powers in 4E, either. Your description of it seems pretty accurate to me. I just don't think it does or should apply to other editions.
@adamsouza: I don't think your party's wizard is a good example of the power gaming possible in 3.5; if the wizard had been power gaming as hard as your party's thief and archer, he'd have left them in the dust.
@Adam LongWalker: Monte Cook left WotC and then did Numenara via KS. I don't blame WotC for not wanting to make D&D Cook's personal playground. Despite his reputation, his farts stink just as badly as everyone else's.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/14 15:24:42
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
Grizzled MkII Monster Veteran
Toronto, Ontario
|
Manchu wrote:@Forar: You've mischaracterized the parts of my post you didn't ignore.
Not intentionally. I wasn't ignoring anything, I was trying to trim down to what I felt was the heart of the issue, lest our conversation become a page spanning monstrosity.
I just don't think it does or should apply to other editions.
Then we agree to disagree.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/14 15:52:06
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Sure. For my part, I think magic should be something ... well, magical. It should certainly be distinct from super powers. That said, I don't mind that 4E had super powers rather than magic. D&D as published has never really done enough to make magic special and I don't think the implicit strategy or Third Edition, i.e., making casters the most powerful, was a good way to do so. I'm also not saying that making magic more dangerous, a la DCC RPG, is necessarily the way to go. Of all the options I've seen in D&D and its clones over the years, I am forced to conclude the age-old "big but rare explosions" is probably the best course, especially as contrasted with the fighter's reasonable and reliable damage output.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/08/14 15:53:10
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/14 16:57:22
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God
Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways
|
Manchu wrote: Cheesecat wrote:wizards don't have the right stats and options in order to make for a good tanks class
It's not that everyone could do the same things. One thing 4E was pretty good about was limiting every class to a certain role: tank, DPS, buff, control. I think what SilverMK2 was getting at, or at least what I would say is, the traditional play style of casters (what I call "menu reading") suddenly became every class's play style thanks to the powers system.
Yeah, I think that is more what I meant. When I posted I saw what you had written above and realised you had said it better
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/14 18:17:44
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
There's a quote I drag out a lot because it summarizes my opinions on the fighter/wizard debate quite nicely:
"I have no problem with wizards doing more than fighters, I do have a problem with a wizard doing more than a fighter in 6 seconds while someone is shooting arrows at them"
I think 4th edition had the opportunity to really fix this with the magic rituals, but it ended up that nobody ever actually used them because they were a terribly designed tacked-on addition to the game that spent resources (money) the characters couldn't spare if they wanted to keep their magic item progression in check.
I'm afraid that if I try to explain this I'll end up not actually making any sense. but what I'm trying to say is that giving Wizards a "Mage: the something" style free-form magic system they can use outside of combat (i.e. requiring hours/days to prepare and cast a spell) wouldn't be such a bad thing, then restricting them to the slots for spells they use during combat (representing "wrote memorization/pre packaged" spells they have down so well they can trigger them in a couple seconds).
I just don't want wizards to be stopping time and opening dimensional gates in combat at the drop of a hat.
|
Like watching other people play video games (badly) while blathering about nothing in particular? Check out my Youtube channel: joemamaUSA!
BrianDavion wrote:Between the two of us... I think GW is assuming we the players are not complete idiots.
Rapidly on path to becoming the world's youngest bitter old man. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/14 18:20:59
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
I really detest the idea of a "magic item progression track" -- why should adventurers be guaranteed magic items? It drains every bit of cool out of magic items. In myths, folktales, and even contemporary fiction, magical items are rare and mysterious. Since at least Third Edition, magic items in D&D are a "human right" of every PC.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/14 18:27:38
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
Screaming Shining Spear
|
Having played from AD&D(2nd) through to 4th Edition and also currently doing Pathfinder. I have to say that the debate between the later systems is going to be a subjective debate on gamer playstyle. I'm sure most of you already realized this.
I've been running games since I was still in middle school and running out of the AD&D(2nd) book where the game model was far more complicated. Here are my overall views.
AD&D(2nd): There was a lot of Flavor and information printed for this system. I know of a few of us that still use some of the older books for general information, artwork, and character/scenario design ideas. The game system was far too simple for martial characters and much more complex and ultimately powerful for casters. The Encyclopedia Magica books were amazing purchases though...I still have mine.
3rd Edition: This Edition marked some improvement in allowing players to customize their characters beyond even what the 2nd Edition 'Complete' Books allowed. Their variations went away, but the introduction of 3rd Edition's Skill system allowed players to specialize in things and make choices that affected out of combat situations more directly. This had upsides and downsides. Players almost had to design their characters together to cover gaps that could normally just be covered by class choices(had to cover some skills for certain challenges to be survivable)..but it did allow people to get into character more in the games I ran. The Prestige classes made people feel more in touch with the world through being able to play in groups of legend from their favorite books.
Edition 3.5: Expanded on the good parts of 3.0 and took it forward to allow more customization. This started off as one of our favorite systems and we played D&D more than ever. With the ever-increasing options they started to allow available...the possibility for making 'crazy' characters that could create or survive disastrous attacks become too easy. The focus in the games went away from playing the character, and more toward building the character once the Edition was in full swing. Prestige Classing became the only way to compete so the core classes..except for perhaps an Illusionist Wizard...were quickly abandoned after 10 levels.
D&D 4th Edition: We gave it a try, we really did. For newer players this game was a godsend. It allowed players to be that iconic Wizard without fumbling through spells or trying to grasp forward thinking to memorize the right spells if they were required to do so. It allowed all classes to feel 'supportive' more than they were if they were not a caster in prior editions. The manipulation of enemies being possible with even fighter and rogue abilities made all the classes seem like different names for the sake of self-expression and less actual difference. This system encouraged racial RPing due to their unique powers but fell short in character RPing.
Pathfinder: My players love this game. This seems to close the power levels of respective classes so martial classes were more desirable to complete and provided unique benefits that even Prestige Classes do not...but Prestige classes also do offer their own mechanics for added diversity.
A quick background on how I run my games, as obviously my point of view will be different from others. I encourage getting into character as much as possible and usually the players enjoy their downtime as much as their crawls due to systems I design for the players to run their own agendas in offtime that are supported by group endeavors. Pathfinder attempts to do this on its own now with the newest book, but we haven't attempted to adjust to it yet. I reward more for role playing than building a powerful character that can soak unwordly hurt and smash things with reckless abandon(I have one player who likes to game the system to create something hard to compete with).
Anywho, just my 2 copper pieces!
Edit: Cleaning and such, adding breaks.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/08/14 18:31:44
Farseer Faenyin
7,100 pts Yme-Loc Eldar(Apoc Included) / 5,700 pts (Non-Apoc)
Record for 6th Edition- Eldar: 25-4-2
Record for 7th Edition -
Eldar: 0-0-0 (Yes, I feel it is that bad)
Battlefleet Gothic: 2,750 pts of Craftworld Eldar
X-wing(Focusing on Imperials): CR90, 6 TIE Fighters, 4 TIE Interceptors, TIE Bomber, TIE Advanced, 4 X-wings, 3 A-wings, 3 B-wings, Y-wing, Z-95
Battletech: Battlion and Command Lance of 3025 Mechs(painted as 21st Rim Worlds) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/14 18:32:44
Subject: The current state of D&D
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
You make a fair point, however in 4e I'm afraid magic items are pretty much a math fix with interesting powers on top (which I don't really mind. To be honest I like 4e best.because it gives me a very well balanced combat system then leaves me alone afterwords and lets me do the rest of the game however I feel like running it). Of course you could work around this by giving the players a built in bonus to hit that scales by level, then reserving items with magic properties as a rare gift. That could be kind of fun, I know that "low magic 4e" is something brought up as a joke a lot of times, but with a few rules modifications it's certainly possible, although a lot of it comes down to flavor/descriptive text (which I usually gloss over being a rules/crunch monkey at heart).
I know at least one person in 3.5 replaced magic items with various "masterwork properties" like serrated sword blades and such, that gave misc bonuses to the weapon that weren't as awesome as a full on magic item. That is an interesting idea as well. I think 3.5 does lend itself better to that kind of thing than 4e though.
That said, there is one guy I know who basically dedicates great quantities of his time to reading the Pathfinder SRD for the "random magic item" section, and whenever we have a one off adventure he always comes loaded with 15 odd crazy items nobody else has ever heard of. I personally think it's hilarious myself, although I can see where you're coming from in your argument.
Sorry, that entire post made no sense. I think my stance basically boils down to "I don't think it's such a big deal, but making magic items more rare without breaking the game would certainly be an interesting change."
|
Like watching other people play video games (badly) while blathering about nothing in particular? Check out my Youtube channel: joemamaUSA!
BrianDavion wrote:Between the two of us... I think GW is assuming we the players are not complete idiots.
Rapidly on path to becoming the world's youngest bitter old man. |
|
 |
 |
|
|