| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
 Posted - 13 Apr 2014 : 01:53:36
|
|
Not really, put your pitchforks away; no you can't have a reboot. Wait until it actually comes out. Now Shoo! Go reread Brimstone Angels.
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2014 : 04:03:50
|
I WILL only go read brimstone angels if someone spoils this question for me
does whats her name slay whats his name that she has a warlock contract with?
if not, I'll go buy the sentinel first |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
 |
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2014 : 05:14:53
|
| Be kind to troll month this time of year? |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2014 : 08:20:35
|
I lol'd.
Sage: is that the Mod-hat in your icon? A bit... frumpy, isn't it?  |
|
|
|
Cbad285
Learned Scribe
160 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2014 : 09:03:19
|
| um, if you guys are finished, i have a serious question about the ordial plane |
"Beware the Dream Fever!" |
|
|
|
Thauranil
Master of Realmslore
India
1591 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2014 : 11:49:40
|
Well this was a pleasant surprise , I was expecting more edition bashing but ended up laughing. |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2388 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2014 : 14:19:31
|
Please. You call posting foregone conclusions trolling? 
I got no "leaked info" or even playtest - and it's still obvious that 5E is going to be made of derp.
Charsheets and quotes on 'net are quite enough to see that it's mostly D&D3 with almost all its warts and that "yes but no but yes" remains among the leading design principles.  |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2014 : 14:55:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
Please. You call posting foregone conclusions trolling?
I got no "leaked info" or even playtest - and it's still obvious that 5E is going to be made of derp.
Charsheets and quotes on 'net are quite enough to see that it's mostly D&D3 with almost all its warts and that "yes but no but yes" remains among the leading design principles.
Considering that I've seen a lot of positive commentary from playtesters -- even here -- I think it's safe to say that it is not a foregone conclusion. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2014 : 15:32:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
Please. You call posting foregone conclusions trolling?
I got no "leaked info" or even playtest - and it's still obvious that 5E is going to be made of derp.
Charsheets and quotes on 'net are quite enough to see that it's mostly D&D3 with almost all its warts and that "yes but no but yes" remains among the leading design principles.
Considering that I've seen a lot of positive commentary from playtesters -- even here -- I think it's safe to say that it is not a foregone conclusion.
I've seen people compare Next to 3E, but there are a LOT of things that separate the two in terms of mechanics and how the game is being designed. For starters, two of the biggest things I felt 3E brought to the forefront was customization of your character. This was seen mostly with the level of detail one can add to their character via skill ranks, feats, and multiclassing.
First, D&D:Next does all 3 of these things differently. Skills are broken down into Backgrounds and not tied to class, nor are there any skill ranks to divide up. Feats, while continuing their "special ability" focus, are FAR more broader in scope and ability than what was in 3E and especially 4E. You get fewer but they have a stronger impact. PLUS you can choose to not take them in lieu of a +2 bump to one of your Ability Scores (or a +1 bump to two scores). Finally multiclassing is similar to 3E in that it's a level-by-level basis, however there are ability score restrictions placed on every single class, so it's harder to get access to certain class features unless you meet specific requirements.
Then you have the design focus of the game. 3E, for many innovative things it created, also created a deluge of complicated and over-inflated mechanics hell-bend on simulating the "real world" as much as possible. What this created was a heaping amount of convoluted rules just to stress the "realism" of the game. I applaud their effort, but it seriously bogged down game play many times. Further, the amount of bonuses / penalties / modifiers / changes / and round-to-round effects that triggered off things OR shifted from character to character got (IMO) too extreme. I feel somethings wrong when a challenging monster needs an AC 45 and +53/+48/+43/+38 attack modifiers.
So what Next does is par down ALL of that into a few common rolls and you can get Advantage on the check (or disadvantage). This is the rolling of two d20s and taking either the better result (advantage) or the lower result (disadvantage). I've heard theories that this equates to something between a +/- 3 to 5 modifier for rolls. Second, the action economy was paired down greatly, in both how much a character can do per turn and per round. No more 7 attacks on your turn because you dual-wield with Hate with a +16 BAB. You get a few attacks as you level, and that's about it. Additionally, all the math is scaled way down (which, to me, is a boon). Monsters increase with difficulty the more of them you put into the field, not because instantly all their armor and attack modifiers increase.
So what we had now is a paired down and simplified combat-system. A Skill system that is based on your background rather than class. A more flexible yet 'balanced' multiclass system. And a game where numbers aren't sky-rocketing 'just cuz. Now as an AVID 4E fan there are things about the system that I don't like. For starters, there is this push that levels 1 and 2 are basically designed for "beginners" and getting into your character. Most 'advanced groups' will probably start their campaigns at 3rd level. Second, the fantastic has pretty much been driven out of the game. Spells and Effects are pared down and a lot of the heroic action has been shifted to very high level play (while in 4E, I could play a pretty cool character at 1st level).
But, like I said when they announced it's creation, I'd give it 1 full year to create mechanics that help make my games more fun. If they can allow me to put a little more action-heroics in the first few levels, I'll be happy. |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2388 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2014 : 19:04:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Considering that I've seen a lot of positive commentary from playtesters -- even here -- I think it's safe to say that it is not a foregone conclusion.
So? I'm sure it's better than 4e... and there was "a lot of positive commentary" about 4e, too.
But there's already one meme about this, no point to try and make it redundant. Even if 3.x contained food for redundancy jokes.
And this part is also close enough to foregone conclusion, too. Even if, technically, it's not guaranteed - there certainly exist fanfics defeating that meme.  |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2388 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2014 : 19:52:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I've seen people compare Next to 3E, but there are a LOT of things that separate the two in terms of mechanics and how the game is being designed.
I noticed only 2 stupid things removed: 3 types of weapons and 3 types of saving throws replaced with C&C version.
Also, a few elements (rage) transformed into MMO style gimmicks ("surges") from 4e to signify it was released later.
quote:
For starters, two of the biggest things I felt 3E brought to the forefront was customization of your character. This was seen mostly with the level of detail one can add to their character via skill ranks, feats, and multiclassing.
I didn't, but then, it was after PO, which had good customization mechanics. Even if it was basically race and class constructor with minimal instructions.
quote:
First, D&D:Next does all 3 of these things differently. Skills are broken down into Backgrounds and not tied to class
And isn't that idea new. So, the new wave of developers managed to reach "Secondary skills" in AD&D1 core books this time? My congratulations, 3.0 team only got to "refreshing" ideas from BD&D. What a reading marathon.
quote:
nor are there any skill ranks to divide up.
I noticed that skills are made rankless. Translation: "we don't have a slightest idea of how to solve skill rank inflation even if similar things were done before both in xD&D and CRPG, so we gave up on recovering this area, nuke-it-from-orbit style".
quote:
Feats, while continuing their "special ability" focus, are FAR more broader in scope and ability than what was in 3E and especially 4E.
Broader than in 3.5? And that is supposed be a good thing?
quote:
Finally multiclassing is similar to 3E in that it's a level-by-level basis, however there are ability score restrictions placed on every single class
Prime requisites also aren't exactly a new idea. I even remember questions about exactly this raised back when 3.0 was just released.
quote:
Then you have the design focus of the game. 3E, for many innovative things it created, also created a deluge of complicated and over-inflated mechanics hell-bend on simulating the "real world" as much as possible. What this created was a heaping amount of convoluted rules just to stress the "realism" of the game. I applaud their effort, but it seriously bogged down game play many times.
Wait, 3.0 already aimed for Bear Lore, but fell short? If this was so, my opinion of 3e is still not as low as it should be.
quote:
Further, the amount of bonuses / penalties / modifiers / changes / and round-to-round effects that triggered off things OR shifted from character to character got (IMO) too extreme. I feel somethings wrong when a challenging monster needs an AC 45 and +53/+48/+43/+38 attack modifiers.
I fail to see even attempt at "realism" in 3e, given the amount of inflatable MUD stuff ("Eldritschtppft Jiggler 9/YPEC Tumbleweed 7 with 99 ranks in Tumble").
quote:
No more 7 attacks on your turn because you dual-wield with Hate with a +16 BAB. You get a few attacks as you level, and that's about it. Additionally, all the math is scaled way down (which, to me, is a boon). Monsters increase with difficulty the more of them you put into the field, not because instantly all their armor and attack modifiers increase.
So, insane MMO-scale multipliers of 3e were somewhat toned down. I'm sure no one ever thought to house-rule this back in 3.00, it's a breakthrough in game design. 
quote:
But, like I said when they announced it's creation, I'd give it 1 full year to create mechanics that help make my games more fun. If they can allow me to put a little more action-heroics in the first few levels, I'll be happy.
And if you give the new windoze 1 full year to get patched, it will become actually useable, too. The problem: even if you're trying to be polite about not being suckered into buying a beta, alas, it remains windoze. |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2014 : 22:03:36
|
| I'll just say that while I like and use 3.5e (and have few/none of the problems with it that are cited by others) I have looked at the 5e playtest stuff and I see a lot of differences. Some good, some not so much... much like every previous edition of the rules. I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to rewrite the Wizard chapter to make that class playable, because it seems to me that they turned the glass cannon into a dust bunny. The bottom line is that (1) my opinion is based on my tastes, (2) we all have different tastes, and (3) we don't know what the 5e rules are going to be; the playtest packets were just snapshots of what the designers were considering at the time. They gave themselves a year after the final packet before printing anything. They can, and probably will, tweak everything. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7970 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2014 : 22:16:34
|
The Buying-Into-Windows analogy has a logical flaw:
There are many alternative operating systems. Some are better, much better, than Windows, at least in important particulars. Some are, in fact, fully capable of emulating Windows well enough to run all but the most Windows-embedded applications. Most cost less than Windows, many are even entirely free.
So people need not continue to buy Windows. Just as they need not continue to buy D&D. Why insist on bashing the newest product version when so many alternatives (including non-WotC brands like d20, Pathfinder, and OSRIC) exist, especially if some of these (including past D&D versions) are expected to run the fun-filled-RPG-adventure-experience better?
I'll admit that my bias and past D&D-edition experiences make me apprehensive, and long have I maintained that newer is not always better. But I'm willing to put my prejudices aside long enough to examine the D&D 5E ruleset and judge it for what it is. Bottom line: I've collected and played every (A)D&D edition already, I'm going to add the newest to my collection ... but if it's not as much fun as my preferred edition then it'll just become a source of ideas/options to adapt into my existing gaming. Bashing and complaining aren't worth time I can invest in more productive enjoyments. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2014 : 02:39:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I've seen people compare Next to 3E, but there are a LOT of things that separate the two in terms of mechanics and how the game is being designed.
I noticed only 2 stupid things removed: 3 types of weapons and 3 types of saving throws replaced with C&C version.
Also, a few elements (rage) transformed into MMO style gimmicks ("surges") from 4e to signify it was released later.
Saves are now based on Ability score and classes give you bonuses to usually two of them. As for MMO mechanics, I didn't notice any in pretty much any version of the game. I've played MMO's for a few years and D&D (any edition) actually plays like none of them.
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
For starters, two of the biggest things I felt 3E brought to the forefront was customization of your character. This was seen mostly with the level of detail one can add to their character via skill ranks, feats, and multiclassing.
I didn't, but then, it was after PO, which had good customization mechanics. Even if it was basically race and class constructor with minimal instructions.
Since I abhor TSR-era D&D, I wouldn't honestly know. The level of granularity 3E had was, for many, tedious but it at least allowed a strong sense of customization. 4E moved away from this and D&D:Next is trying to find a middle ground.
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
First, D&D:Next does all 3 of these things differently. Skills are broken down into Backgrounds and not tied to class
And isn't that idea new. So, the new wave of developers managed to reach "Secondary skills" in AD&D1 core books this time? My congratulations, 3.0 team only got to "refreshing" ideas from BD&D. What a reading marathon.
Again, hate TSR-era D&D so I'm not honestly sure what's considered "new". From a 3E/4E perspective, skills were strongly related to Class. D&D Next broke away from that. I had hoped they stuck with Skills being also independent from ability scores too, but that didn't last very long.
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
nor are there any skill ranks to divide up.
I noticed that skills are made rankless. Translation: "we don't have a slightest idea of how to solve skill rank inflation even if similar things were done before both in xD&D and CRPG, so we gave up on recovering this area, nuke-it-from-orbit style".
Probably because a a certain portion of D&D fans find the level of granularity for Skill ranks moronic and pointless, preferring a simpler solution to resolve Skills and adjudicate the level of aptitude from one character to another.
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Feats, while continuing their "special ability" focus, are FAR more broader in scope and ability than what was in 3E and especially 4E.
Broader than in 3.5? And that is supposed be a good thing?
Definitly! But hey, if someone doesn't like feats there are other options as well. Unlike 3E and 4E where you were pretty much forced to pick them. And yea, broad as in 1 feat does a couple of things instead of endless lines of Feat-Chains and Prerequisites and all that garbage. That way choosing a Feat is an actual investment you see immediately instead of a string of things you take until X level where you are finally playing a character you want.
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Finally multiclassing is similar to 3E in that it's a level-by-level basis, however there are ability score restrictions placed on every single class
Prime requisites also aren't exactly a new idea. I even remember questions about exactly this raised back when 3.0 was just released.
Again, Multiclassing in 3E WAS different but the level of brokeness
quote:
Then you have the design focus of the game. 3E, for many innovative things it created, also created a deluge of complicated and over-inflated mechanics hell-bend on simulating the "real world" as much as possible. What this created was a heaping amount of convoluted rules just to stress the "realism" of the game. I applaud their effort, but it seriously bogged down game play many times.
Wait, 3.0 already aimed for Bear Lore, but fell short? If this was so, my opinion of 3e is still not as low as it should be.
Not really sure what that has to do with 3E attempting to simulate physics with the D&D-world?
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Further, the amount of bonuses / penalties / modifiers / changes / and round-to-round effects that triggered off things OR shifted from character to character got (IMO) too extreme. I feel somethings wrong when a challenging monster needs an AC 45 and +53/+48/+43/+38 attack modifiers.
I fail to see even attempt at "realism" in 3e, given the amount of inflatable MUD stuff ("Eldritschtppft Jiggler 9/YPEC Tumbleweed 7 with 99 ranks in Tumble").
Look at the rules for Grappling. Or the changes in rules for sizes and the modifiers associated with it. Pretty much anyone who's a fan of 3E realizes that 3E was the first time D&D tried to codify things to simulate a form of realism within the game. Yes, it does break down when one looks at certain gamist elements, but it's attempt is FAR more than any edition TSR created. Second, characters don't have classes and levels hovering above their heads, so it's largely irrelevant how many levels or classes one takes to begin with.
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
No more 7 attacks on your turn because you dual-wield with Haste with a +16 BAB. You get a few attacks as you level, and that's about it. Additionally, all the math is scaled way down (which, to me, is a boon). Monsters increase with difficulty the more of them you put into the field, not because instantly all their armor and attack modifiers increase.
So, insane MMO-scale multipliers of 3e were somewhat toned down. I'm sure no one ever thought to house-rule this back in 3.0, it's a breakthrough in game design.
Who cares about houseruling? It's 100% completely irrelevant to the actual discussion of the game. I'm sure anyone can create ANY houserule to make a game more preferable. Which means dittily-squat. The modifiers aren't 'somewhat' toned down, they're reduced SIGNIFICANTLY in both attacks and AC. A D&D:Next Ice Devil, for example, has a lowly AC of 14 (but 114 HP) and a +6 to attack rolls. Compared to the v3.5 version with an AC 29, and 5 attacks from +20 to +14. Yeah I'll take the former any given day.
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
But, like I said when they announced it's creation, I'd give it 1 full year to create mechanics that help make my games more fun. If they can allow me to put a little more action-heroics in the first few levels, I'll be happy.
And if you give the new windoze 1 full year to get patched, it will become actually useable, too. The problem: even if you're trying to be polite about not being suckered into buying a beta, alas, it remains windoze.
Good thing no ones forcing you to buy it. Honestly, I don't think it matters. It's "discussions" like this that easily show that certain people are just better off sticking with the system they prefer and not catering to them in the slightest. People who scoff at most of the changes that have happened to the game don't want new editions. They don't want new mechanics or new ideas to creep into the iconic D&D. Which if fine, but then I don't see why people complain about it when 99% of the time they're not going to be impressed anyway except maybe an ever-slightly revised version of their own preferred edition. |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2014 : 07:50:27
|
| yay! joke thread turned into , 5e comparison number 42, take 5. |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2388 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2014 : 13:15:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
The Buying-Into-Windows analogy has a logical flaw:
There are many alternative operating systems. Some are better, much better, than Windows, at least in important particulars. Some are, in fact, fully capable of emulating Windows well enough to run all but the most Windows-embedded applications. Most cost less than Windows, many are even entirely free.
So people need not continue to buy Windows. Just as they need not continue to buy D&D. Why insist on bashing the newest product version when so many alternatives (including non-WotC brands like d20, Pathfinder, and OSRIC) exist, especially if some of these (including past D&D versions) are expected to run the fun-filled-RPG-adventure-experience better?
But then... where's the promised flaw?
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
I noticed only 2 stupid things removed: 3 types of weapons and 3 types of saving throws replaced with C&C version.
Also, a few elements (rage) transformed into MMO style gimmicks ("surges") from 4e to signify it was released later.
Saves are now based on Ability score and classes give you bonuses to usually two of them.
quote:
As for MMO mechanics, I didn't notice any in pretty much any version of the game.
And the word of the day is... "desensitized"!
quote:
Since I abhor TSR-era D&D, I wouldn't honestly know. [...] Again, hate TSR-era D&D so I'm not honestly sure what's considered "new".
I also did never read Pasternak, but decesively condemn him! (c)
quote:
The level of granularity 3E had was, for many, tedious but it at least allowed a strong sense of customization.
So, is that "customization" or "strong sense of customization"? The difference may be about as big as e.g. between "safety" and "strong sense of safety".
quote:
preferring a simpler solution to resolve Skills and adjudicate the level of aptitude from one character to another.
Which is?..
quote:
Not really sure what that has to do with 3E attempting to simulate physics with the D&D-world?
I am puzzled as to what this is even supposed to mean. My only clue is that Americans evidently learn Aristotlean physics at school, thus one have to look for... mmm... sufficiently non-metric values of "physics", so... Did you mean the introduction of that "Hardness" thing?
quote:
Look at the rules for Grappling. Or the changes in rules for sizes and the modifiers associated with it. Pretty much anyone who's a fan of 3E realizes that 3E was the first time D&D tried [...] Yes, it does break down when one looks at certain gamist elements, but it's attempt is FAR more than any edition TSR created.
Do "the first time" and "any" here include or exclude everything that was before, which you profess to decisively condemn without knowing what it is above?
quote:
to codify things to simulate a form of realism within the game.
You really think it's a compliment? I thought that pretty much anyone who was in any xD&D community for more than a year without being a shiny-eyed fan of anything particular develops a strange reaction to the word "realism" - namely, snickering and backing off slowly at the same time. Because this conclusion is even more foregone. My all-time favourite sample of "realism" in *D&D was house rule intended to allow an uber-hunter's to shoot a squirrel in the eye. With a long bow. No idea how its author imagined the intended result himself, but this still gets me in stitches. Heh, at some point it was avoided like a plague even in the official books. (*)
quote:
Who cares about houseruling? It's 100% completely irrelevant to the actual discussion of the game. I'm sure anyone can create ANY houserule to make a game more preferable. Which means dittily-squat. The modifiers aren't 'somewhat' toned down, they're reduced SIGNIFICANTLY
You see, if something completely falls apart after being "finally fixed, hurrah", it's either eye-bleedingly obvious, or isn't... but when you loudly praise on the same breath both the "fix" breaking something and the fix fixing that "fix"... well, just don't mind when people who applaud you are also laughing out loud, that's all.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
And if you give the new windoze 1 full year to get patched, it will become actually useable, too. The problem: even if you're trying to be polite about not being suckered into buying a beta, alas, it remains windoze.
Good thing no ones forcing you to buy it.
Come on. Let's not spout what is long ago proven to be patent nonsense? Now, e.g. "frequently fails to force people to buy it, as long as they aren't ignorant or too lazy to spend a token effort needed to avoid the coercion itself, unreasonable pricing and problems such as jackboot EULA or malware" - that would be true.
quote:
Honestly, I don't think it matters. It's "discussions" like this that easily show that certain people are just better off sticking with the system they prefer and not catering to them in the slightest.
Well, obviously. If a client likes e.g. blue screens, and blue screens are already here, why and how would anyone "cater to" this client? By fixing what isn't broken?
So, the solution is to give the same thing after a slight makeover and charge for it twice. The target audience will pay twice and scream how awesome it is. Which, naturally, is exactly what is observed, repeatedly.
Which is fine. As long as, how you put it? No one is forcing anyone to buy it.
quote:
People who scoff at most of the changes that have happened to the game don't want new editions. They don't want new mechanics or new ideas to creep into the iconic D&D.
If you speak for someone, would it hurt you to clarify whom exactly? I can't figure out whether your "Iconic D&D" is 3e or 4e. And it can be narrowed even this much only because you professed ignorance of everything earlier at another part of your message.
quote:
Which if fine, but then I don't see why people complain about it when 99% of the time they're not going to be impressed anyway except maybe an ever-slightly revised version of their own preferred edition.
You mean, like 3e to "next"?
(*)quote:
The Combat & Tactics book is a compromise that adds some detail to combat - not to make it more realistic, but to make combat more believable.
- Richard Baker's foreword to PO:C&T
|
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2014 : 13:26:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
Please. You call posting foregone conclusions trolling?
I got no "leaked info" or even playtest - and it's still obvious that 5E is going to be made of derp.
Charsheets and quotes on 'net are quite enough to see that it's mostly D&D3 with almost all its warts and that "yes but no but yes" remains among the leading design principles.
Considering that I've seen a lot of positive commentary from playtesters -- even here -- I think it's safe to say that it is not a foregone conclusion.
I've seen people compare Next to 3E, but there are a LOT of things that separate the two in terms of mechanics and how the game is being designed. For starters, two of the biggest things I felt 3E brought to the forefront was customization of your character. This was seen mostly with the level of detail one can add to their character via skill ranks, feats, and multiclassing.
First, D&D:Next does all 3 of these things differently. Skills are broken down into Backgrounds and not tied to class, nor are there any skill ranks to divide up. Feats, while continuing their "special ability" focus, are FAR more broader in scope and ability than what was in 3E and especially 4E. You get fewer but they have a stronger impact. PLUS you can choose to not take them in lieu of a +2 bump to one of your Ability Scores (or a +1 bump to two scores). Finally multiclassing is similar to 3E in that it's a level-by-level basis, however there are ability score restrictions placed on every single class, so it's harder to get access to certain class features unless you meet specific requirements.
Then you have the design focus of the game. 3E, for many innovative things it created, also created a deluge of complicated and over-inflated mechanics hell-bend on simulating the "real world" as much as possible. What this created was a heaping amount of convoluted rules just to stress the "realism" of the game. I applaud their effort, but it seriously bogged down game play many times. Further, the amount of bonuses / penalties / modifiers / changes / and round-to-round effects that triggered off things OR shifted from character to character got (IMO) too extreme. I feel somethings wrong when a challenging monster needs an AC 45 and +53/+48/+43/+38 attack modifiers.
So what Next does is par down ALL of that into a few common rolls and you can get Advantage on the check (or disadvantage). This is the rolling of two d20s and taking either the better result (advantage) or the lower result (disadvantage). I've heard theories that this equates to something between a +/- 3 to 5 modifier for rolls. Second, the action economy was paired down greatly, in both how much a character can do per turn and per round. No more 7 attacks on your turn because you dual-wield with Hate with a +16 BAB. You get a few attacks as you level, and that's about it. Additionally, all the math is scaled way down (which, to me, is a boon). Monsters increase with difficulty the more of them you put into the field, not because instantly all their armor and attack modifiers increase.
So what we had now is a paired down and simplified combat-system. A Skill system that is based on your background rather than class. A more flexible yet 'balanced' multiclass system. And a game where numbers aren't sky-rocketing 'just cuz. Now as an AVID 4E fan there are things about the system that I don't like. For starters, there is this push that levels 1 and 2 are basically designed for "beginners" and getting into your character. Most 'advanced groups' will probably start their campaigns at 3rd level. Second, the fantastic has pretty much been driven out of the game. Spells and Effects are pared down and a lot of the heroic action has been shifted to very high level play (while in 4E, I could play a pretty cool character at 1st level).
But, like I said when they announced it's creation, I'd give it 1 full year to create mechanics that help make my games more fun. If they can allow me to put a little more action-heroics in the first few levels, I'll be happy.
As Usual Diffan is spot on.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2014 : 21:00:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
Please. You call posting foregone conclusions trolling?
I got no "leaked info" or even playtest - and it's still obvious that 5E is going to be made of derp.
Charsheets and quotes on 'net are quite enough to see that it's mostly D&D3 with almost all its warts and that "yes but no but yes" remains among the leading design principles.
Considering that I've seen a lot of positive commentary from playtesters -- even here -- I think it's safe to say that it is not a foregone conclusion.
I've seen people compare Next to 3E, but there are a LOT of things that separate the two in terms of mechanics and how the game is being designed. For starters, two of the biggest things I felt 3E brought to the forefront was customization of your character. This was seen mostly with the level of detail one can add to their character via skill ranks, feats, and multiclassing.
First, D&D:Next does all 3 of these things differently. Skills are broken down into Backgrounds and not tied to class, nor are there any skill ranks to divide up. Feats, while continuing their "special ability" focus, are FAR more broader in scope and ability than what was in 3E and especially 4E. You get fewer but they have a stronger impact. PLUS you can choose to not take them in lieu of a +2 bump to one of your Ability Scores (or a +1 bump to two scores). Finally multiclassing is similar to 3E in that it's a level-by-level basis, however there are ability score restrictions placed on every single class, so it's harder to get access to certain class features unless you meet specific requirements.
Then you have the design focus of the game. 3E, for many innovative things it created, also created a deluge of complicated and over-inflated mechanics hell-bend on simulating the "real world" as much as possible. What this created was a heaping amount of convoluted rules just to stress the "realism" of the game. I applaud their effort, but it seriously bogged down game play many times. Further, the amount of bonuses / penalties / modifiers / changes / and round-to-round effects that triggered off things OR shifted from character to character got (IMO) too extreme. I feel somethings wrong when a challenging monster needs an AC 45 and +53/+48/+43/+38 attack modifiers.
So what Next does is par down ALL of that into a few common rolls and you can get Advantage on the check (or disadvantage). This is the rolling of two d20s and taking either the better result (advantage) or the lower result (disadvantage). I've heard theories that this equates to something between a +/- 3 to 5 modifier for rolls. Second, the action economy was paired down greatly, in both how much a character can do per turn and per round. No more 7 attacks on your turn because you dual-wield with Hate with a +16 BAB. You get a few attacks as you level, and that's about it. Additionally, all the math is scaled way down (which, to me, is a boon). Monsters increase with difficulty the more of them you put into the field, not because instantly all their armor and attack modifiers increase.
So what we had now is a paired down and simplified combat-system. A Skill system that is based on your background rather than class. A more flexible yet 'balanced' multiclass system. And a game where numbers aren't sky-rocketing 'just cuz. Now as an AVID 4E fan there are things about the system that I don't like. For starters, there is this push that levels 1 and 2 are basically designed for "beginners" and getting into your character. Most 'advanced groups' will probably start their campaigns at 3rd level. Second, the fantastic has pretty much been driven out of the game. Spells and Effects are pared down and a lot of the heroic action has been shifted to very high level play (while in 4E, I could play a pretty cool character at 1st level).
But, like I said when they announced it's creation, I'd give it 1 full year to create mechanics that help make my games more fun. If they can allow me to put a little more action-heroics in the first few levels, I'll be happy.
As Usual Diffan is spot on.
Thanks buddy. Since they (WotC) announced a new edition, I remain skeptical. I've played every single playtest packet as they rolled out. Read every Legends and Lore article, read all the Q&A / Rules of 3 articles and have been following it for 2 years. I'm not saying that this is going to be the BEST D&D edition ever nor will it automatically replace the version of D&D individuals prefer hands-down. What it does do is take quite a few ideas from other editions (the ones from 3E and 4E I can easily recognize) and throw in ways to modulate the system so it can be used with different playstyles.
Now hopefully they'll make good on their promise and create a really modular system to provide ways of altering the core-system so that a DM or group can make the game more gritty or more action-heroic or high-fantasy or Gothic-nightmare. Simple sub-systems that can just be plugged into the core or things adjusted slightly would be idea, so that people don't have to go in and change everything about the game to make it so. Also, I'd love to see genre-specific Box sets that can be run with just the core rules or even just with the box set that has all the relevant information inside to run a space-opera style game or a horror game. It could have specific rules or alterations to the main game that create better synergy with that genre. |
|
|
|
Drustan Dwnhaedan
Learned Scribe
USA
324 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2014 : 22:05:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
yay! joke thread turned into , 5e comparison number 42, take 5.
Oh, I dunno; it still seems kinda funny to me, depending on how seriously you take what's being discussed. And I've seen (both here and RW) so many '5e compared to X' discussions that I just can't take them seriously anymore. (Although I must admit, the scribes here have been behaving in a much more civilized manner than some of the RW argu- er, discussions I've seen.) |
|
|
|
Baltas
Senior Scribe
Poland
955 Posts |
Posted - 27 Apr 2014 : 14:07:36
|
Haha very funny thread joke, but a bit late for April Fools!
Pretty funny and ironic that this transformed into an at least semi-serious 5E discussion...
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
I got leaked info, 5E is going to be utter crap
