|
Countblanc posted:I'm pretty sure Mearls actually is designing the exact game he wants, I'm be shocked if he's panicking about trying to "bring everyone together" or whatever. Even if he isn't designing for it I have to imagine the criticism affects him. Humans are pretty sensitive creatures. Being called the literally the Devil over and over again has to have some effect on him.
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 18:36 |
|
|
Those mechanics are also awful and don't match the fiction he's trying to create at all. There's nothing present in those black dragon mechanics that isn't "does more damage" or "has more HP".
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Was there even such a thing as a solo tag in previous editions? Pathfinder doesn't have it. I've never seen it in AD&D outside of a Monster Manual Entry called Legendary Creatures.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Was there even such a thing as a solo tag in previous editions? Pathfinder doesn't have it. I've never seen it in AD&D outside of a Monster Manual Entry called Legendary Creatures.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
quote:You guys, what does D&D actually feel like? Because for me, I'd rather have games that focus on amoral murderhobos doing shenanigans up and down Faerun/Khorvaire/Greyhawk without also getting my teeth kicked in for playing a sword and board fighter. D&D 3E was my first D&D for me, and it never felt how I imagined it after absorbing so much cheap licensed D&D fiction beforehand. For me D&D doesn't feel like much. I have played a lot of AD&D 2nd ed, 3rd & 3,5th ed, Pathfinder and a little bit of 4th ed. D&D has been to me just one fantasy rpg in the pile. It used to be my old group only had AD&D so that was what we played, later we swapped to Praedor (a Finnish system) and haven't gone back since. I like 4th ed because of its tactical depth, Pathfinder for the Pathfinder Society games (which are not really a harbor of grogs around here), but to me there is no such thing as "feels like D&D" or "a genuine D&D experience". It has always been one of the game systems, not the first I played, not the one I have enjoyed the most, but not one I have any strong feelings against either. I don't care about what Next game "feels" like, if it would offer balanced classes, interesting new rules and if it was, taken as a whole, a system superior to either 4th ed or Pathfinder I would play it more. If the end result is like what the playtest stuff is right now I won't buy Next, because it doesn't offer anything new to me. As for food, here is a recipe, sort of, for our gamer meals when we can't be bothered to cook anything fancy: The Sausage Garbage (Makkaratörky) -Take several big sausages, chop them into circural slices, about 0,5cm thick. -Take a bag of garlic-potato mix, frozen. -Stuff everything into an oven-proof glass container. -Add cream (2dl), pepper and chopped onion. -Sprinkle ground cheese on top. -Bake for about an hour in about 100C. -Enjoy and hear the lamentations of your arteries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Was there even such a thing as a solo tag in previous editions? Pathfinder doesn't have it. I've never seen it in AD&D outside of a Monster Manual Entry called Legendary Creatures. There was definitely no "solo" tags. It was pretty clear that a Red Dragon is something that fights a party on its lonesome, but it was not codified until 4E. Honestly the design aesthetics of Solo Monsters in 4E were pretty great, and you can pretty much run an entire game on boss fights.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Splicer posted:When Mike Mearls is criticising things "Previous Editions" means 4E (and sometimes pre-3.x). If he's praising things "Previous Editions" means 3.x (and sometimes pre-3.x). Mike Mearls saying 'Previous Editions' is like when that dick at your office talks about 'Some People.' Everybody knows who he's talking about. But if you call him on it he'll say he didn't say anybody's name. (e: As in, 'Some people need to take their left overs out of the fridge,' 'some people spend too much time in the bathroom', 'some people talk to loudly on their cell phones', etc.) It's the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
To me, coming into D&D in my early 20s rather than my adolescence, D&D feels like a lot of frustration and confusion and tone-deaf arguments over absolutely nothing. I started by looking at 4e (having played some of the 3e video games) and I could not for the life of me understand why it had to be so complicated if the idea was that it's a roleplaying game, but it was a solid tactical play experience so I wasn't too mad about it. Trying Pathfinder and other editions was a huge exercise in slamming my head against a wall as the guy pegged to be DM trying to understand the rules and being immensely annoyed that I had to house rule or outright obliterate huge swaths of the game to compensate for absolutely busted class design. Then being bored to tears by full-attack nickle and dime combat. Then I ran a fantasy game using nWoD and it was like what I thought D&D was supposed to be. WHERE'S THE THING FOR ME IN NEXT, MIKE??? I'm mostly following next out of morbid curiosity train-wreck-ism. At this point, other games are better at being D&D than D&D is, was, or will be. I really wonder how long the brand loyalty will keep it afloat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Mike Mearls posted:In part, I think the definition didn't maintain consistency because I believe that elite and solo didn't clearly represent something within the world of the game. Actually, he makes sense here. And since we are opening this can of worms, I have to say that "hit dice" don't clearly represent anything within the world of the game either. I mean, when was the last time your fighter looked up to a dragon and said "Yep, that's about 30 to 35 hit dice I reckon". Hit dice should be recast as an exotic thrown weapon instead. Character levels? Makes no sense. Now it's the uppermost floor in their guild house that they are allowed to enter (there is a tity bar on level 20). As for base attack bonus, it's obviously the extra payment that soldiers who participated in a siege receive. I mean, come on people, let's have a D&D that actually makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
Varjon posted:WHERE'S THE THING FOR ME IN NEXT, MIKE??? To be fair, there's a lot of games out there for you. The vast majority of RPGs deal in roleplaying first, tactical combat second (if at all), and many of them like 13th Age and Dungeon World are pretty simple. 4e was cool and novel because it was the first time a developer really tried to make a tactical, co-op game. We really haven't seen another developer try it since other than Sacred BBQ if that counts, and I'm not sure if it's because designers assume there's no demand for it, or because the designers themselves think it's stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
Oh yes, I've found my babies for sure. I just kind of have to chuckle wryly when it's insisted that Next has Something For Everyone! By Changing Nothing
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
Varjon posted:Oh yes, I've found my babies for sure. I just kind of have to chuckle wryly when it's insisted that Next has Something For Everyone! By Changing Nothing I think 'it has something for everyone' went out the window when Mearls said, 'if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it.'
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I think 'it has something for everyone' went out the window when Mearls said, 'if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it.' Everyone was a 4e term. Everyone in Next has been redifined to be "people who buy Next."
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:To be fair, there's a lot of games out there for you. The vast majority of RPGs deal in roleplaying first, tactical combat second (if at all), and many of them like 13th Age and Dungeon World are pretty simple. 4e was cool and novel because it was the first time a developer really tried to make a tactical, co-op game. We really haven't seen another developer try it since other than Sacred BBQ if that counts, and I'm not sure if it's because designers assume there's no demand for it, or because the designers themselves think it's stupid. I'm not even going to pretend this is anything but a shill and point out that Last Stand + other associated games are explicitly an attempt to make a simpler, faster tactical co-op game, and there's a fair amount of demand for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
Rexides posted:Actually, he makes sense here. It's the same thing with party roles. They didn't really map to any in-game fiction either. Just because the cleric is a Leader doesn't mean he's necessarily the guy telling other people what to do. It's just a designation to give a player a good idea of what they can expect to be doing in combat. Granted, both of these things were pointed out as MMOisms by detractors, but really all they were doing was codifying and putting some mechanical rigor behind some things that have been part of the game forever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
Is anyone in this thread who doesn't misinterpret me? I thought I was being over the top enough in my last post to get my sarcasm through.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
Dragons are now a sack of hit points with a bunch of damage rolls sticking out the ends. For gently caress's sake even 3.5 gave them spells to at least give them something interesting to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
In Next, sarcasm will be a module. If the fighter succeeds at something, the DM can say he meant to do the opposite of that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Rexides posted:Is anyone in this thread who doesn't misinterpret me? I thought I was being over the top enough in my last post to get my sarcasm through.  You're right. The phrase "makes sense" in this thread should have been a big clue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
Mike Mearls posted:Legendary Means Something: I was never quite happy with how the solo tag from previous editions transformed into a mechanical contrivance. The original concept in 4th Edition was that solos and elites were meant to be size Large and bigger creaturesmassive foes that by their nature posed a constant threat. You know when that changed? You know which book it changed in, Mearls? H1: Keep on the Shadowfell in which you introduced Sir Keegan, a level 4 Solo Skeleton Knight. You were lead author on the first adventure for 4e - and chose to break that unspoken guideline when it wasn't broken in the MM1 (or any other mainline monster manual I can think of). So almost everyone who did it afterwards was following your lead. Edit: I do beg the Berbalang's pardon. It was medium, a solo, and in the MM1. Although its solosity was formed by manifesting multiple bodies. neonchameleon fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Jun 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Yeah I have no idea what's up with Mearls saying that size = more powerful monster, there were tons of medium size elites and solos (and there should be, an entire party taking on one super powerful badass dude who's the same size as all of them is as old a story as well...stories). That was a thing in WoW though since even normal humans were much bigger if they were bosses (insert NEXT is WoW joke here or something I don't know, with the current healbot mechanics i sometimes wonder(note this is a joke/saracasm I'm not literally doing the NEXT is WoW thing that people used to love attacking 4e with)). All elite and solos are are math that tells and allows the DM to create/use monsters that are more or much more powerful then regular monsters without loving around with math like Hit Dice and level or whatever you had to do in 3.x (and NEXT it seems like). I'm not sure why it needs to be explained more then that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
goldjas posted:All elite and solos are are math that tells and allows the DM to create/use monsters that are more or much more powerful then regular monsters without loving around with math like Hit Dice and level or whatever you had to do in 3.x (and NEXT it seems like). I'm not sure why it needs to be explained more then that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:To be fair, there's a lot of games out there for you. The vast majority of RPGs deal in roleplaying first, tactical combat second (if at all), and many of them like 13th Age and Dungeon World are pretty simple. 4e was cool and novel because it was the first time a developer really tried to make a tactical, co-op game. We really haven't seen another developer try it since other than Sacred BBQ if that counts, and I'm not sure if it's because designers assume there's no demand for it, or because the designers themselves think it's stupid. Iron Kingdoms RPG? The combat rules are literally a tactical wargame.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
Splicer posted:More importantly, they're math that tells you how to make a single-character encounter exciting. Bonus attacks, lots of AOEs etc. Just up-scaling the damage and HP on an orc would result in a monster that's an appropriate challenge level, but a really lovely fight. Yeah this. What 4e did for me was identify that 'higher level' doesn't always mean 'more challenging fight.' Or rather, it does, but not in a linear fashion. A level-appropriate monster makes certain assumptions about to-hit and AC. It always has, even in AD&D, though you see a lot more monsters fall into the normal range over there (between 10 and 0, rather than 1 to infinity as seen in 3.x). So yeah, more damage and higher health might make a monster appropriate for a whole party to fight... or it might be silly easy, or it might be impossible, depending on the monster. Just picking a harder monster isn't always the best plan, because they might be impossible for your party to hit, or hit your party so often and so hard that it's basically a matter of, 'well, one of us is going to die, let's try to figure out which one.' Which is exciting in its own way, I guess. But sometimes I want a monster that hits often and has HP but is otherwise appropriate to the PCs' level. Solo did that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
I mean at the end of the day this is the quintessential mearls update. It bashes 4e for no reason, ignores actual 4e mechanics in favor of edition war catch phrases, goes on to make something that's "4e but shittier," is strewn with the bizarro reverse dogwhistle magic bullshit (where only his non-targeted audience hears "only magic can be special"), points out a flaw that he himself made while he tries not to mention that, and there's an idea and concept there that could be really great if only they made use of it. Edit: And so much of this screams the flaws of Next at you. Legendary saves are broadcasting as hard as they can why the current magic system and saving throw system is awful. Legendary actions are grabbing you and shaking you and speaking excitedly about how crap trying to ignore the action economy is (I mean really, "we don't follow any 'action economy.' Now he's a set of rigid set actions they can make...'"). The awkward wording in everything is...well, that's just how all of Next is. And there's just that bit of a good idea buried in there. Next is the most heartbreaky heartbreaker in existence. ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I mean at the end of the day this is the quintessential mearls update. It bashes 4e for no reason, ignores actual 4e mechanics in favor of edition war catch phrases, goes on to make something that's "4e but shittier," is strewn with the bizarro reverse dogwhistle magic bullshit (where only his non-targeted audience hears "only magic can be special"), points out a flaw that he himself made while he tries not to mention that, and there's an idea and concept there that could be really great if only they made use of it. What do you mean? 'Black dragon hits again'. 'Black dragon hits harder.' 'PCs can do dick to stop it.' HOW INNOVATIVE. I don't see why you need a Legendary Action economy. Couldn't they just give the Dragon a couple of Standard Actions and call it- Oh. Right. E: So if only creatures that are inherently magical get Legendary Actions does that mean Wizards will have a spell to get them? 
Mendrian fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:The unfun cleric is just Bad, though. The system's providing no 'put in effort to earn X' incentive, it's just making a lovely to play class. A big part of the problem is that there aren't really any decision points in D&D healing like there are in MMO healing. It's boring being the healbot because the healing process is this: Is this dude hurt? y - Cast your Cure X Wounds n - Don't cast your Cure x Wounds In an MMO a healer can be an interesting role because you have a lot of decision points in an encounter - what kind of damage your group is going to take, where your group is standing, encounter movement, all of that affects what type of healing spells you are going to cast. Even after all that, you are going to have a variety of ways you heal someone - Do you straight up outheal damage? Do you ward someone with shields? Do you place reactive heals on someone? Juggle heal over time spells? Do you cast damaging spells that heal your group? Do you reverse curses into blessings and blessings into curses? If you are going to have "Healer" be a role in the game, healing powers should be just as diverse and interesting as the combat powers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:A big part of the problem is that there aren't really any decision points in D&D healing like there are in MMO healing. It's boring being the healbot because the healing process is this: To be fair 4e basically did this if you played as a pure healer, heals that let them make saves, heals that you attacked and healed, heals that buffed something, heals that healed everyone in an area, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
goldjas posted:To be fair 4e basically did this if you played as a pure healer, heals that let them make saves, heals that you attacked and healed, heals that buffed something, heals that healed everyone in an area, and so on. The first thing I noticed was that the dragon's legendaries are measured in uses per day. "The dragon can autosucceed four saves per day." Is running the dragon out of saves and then meeting it again later in the day (or chasing it down before midnight) an actual aspect of gameplay?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
Caphi posted:The first thing I noticed was that the dragon's legendaries are measured in uses per day. "The dragon can autosucceed four saves per day." Is running the dragon out of saves and then meeting it again later in the day (or chasing it down before midnight) an actual aspect of gameplay? In that Legendary Resistance is basically "Wizard Hit Points", yes. That's just, like, the tip of the iceberg in the hosed-up-edness of Legendary Resistance, if you sit and follow the concept to its meta-logical conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
Caphi posted:The first thing I noticed was that the dragon's legendaries are measured in uses per day. "The dragon can autosucceed four saves per day." Is running the dragon out of saves and then meeting it again later in the day (or chasing it down before midnight) an actual aspect of gameplay? Naw, it's just that everything in D&D must always be measured in 24 hour increments. And yes, as OKShark said, Legendary Resistance is little more then "Well saves are all autokills because we're really loving bad at math, so let's give him Second Hitpoints."
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
goldjas posted:To be fair 4e basically did this if you played as a pure healer, heals that let them make saves, heals that you attacked and healed, heals that buffed something, heals that healed everyone in an area, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:In that Legendary Resistance is basically "Wizard Hit Points", yes. Its high time DnD accepted a two damage pool system. Fighters and other mundanes get more of the basic "hit points" while wizards get more of the second pool of "not dying instantly due to failing a single roll."
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
Barudak posted:Its high time DnD accepted a two damage pool system. Fighters and other mundanes get more of the basic "hit points" while wizards get more of the second pool of "not dying instantly due to failing a single roll." Naw, gently caress that. You can only take HP damage if you deal HP damage. You can only take SoD damage if you deal SoD damage. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
Originally they stated that poo poo would be built on HP thresholds. Like, SoDs only work if you had below a certain amount of HP. But that turned out to make fighters super resilient against SoDs, and plenty of SoDs just ended up ignoring it, so
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Originally they stated that poo poo would be built on HP thresholds. Like, SoDs only work if you had below a certain amount of HP. But that turned out to make fighters super resilient against SoDs, and plenty of SoDs just ended up ignoring it, so Fighters should be super resilient against SoDs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
This is the dumbest loving poo poo I have seen since my houserules from when I was fourteen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
I wonder how many Wizard Hit Points Fighters will get? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
Hilariously enough, the dragon has absolutely none of the things he whinged about 4e Solos lacking. Like trample. Which giant 4e monsters had. This dragon is in fact worse at being the literal type of character he is trying to create then the very same monsters he spent most the article bashing. So it's really loving Next is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 18:36 |
|
|
The basic fact of Mearls whining that being a solo didn't represent any consistent, in-world thing and then attempting to mechanize the concept of being "legendary" is just great. Presumably a dragon that nobody's ever heard of can only breathe fire 1/day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 03:27
|
|
