|
Piell posted:Anyone who recommends Pathfinder for beginners is an idiot. I would tend to agree with this. It's a system with a lot of bloat, a lot of baggage and a lot of actively and even deliberately bad design in the name of tradition and 'roleplay not rollplay'.
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:38 |
|
|
Piell posted:Anyone who recommends Pathfinder for beginners is an idiot. While I pretty much agree, there's a case to be made for recommending it on the basis that it's currently the easiest game to find a casual group for. At least in my area, the Pathfinder Society players are very friendly and welcoming to newbies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
I'm a bit confused by what people mean by PoE and being disappointed in its design... That's Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity, right? A single-player computer RPG, not a tabletop game? I was under the impression that those CRPGs were one of the legit cases where "simple, mostly passive ability Fighter" and "57 spell slot Caster" actually worked because you're not controlling just a single piece, you're controlling the entire party. It allows you to have a few big, beefy pawns that you can place for some not-mentally-tasking tactical action, while letting you play with all the spells and special abilities of your more complex classes. It's a different realm of design than tabletop games and it seemingly worked for the old Infinity Engine RPGs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 11:58
|
|
|
I think I would have liked playing 4E on a PC, either as a game, or with friends via Skype. But I didn't enjoy it as a table top role playing game - to me it was a tabletop war game with events that occurred outside combat. Warhammer Quest did that game much better. I liked 3.5 up to about level 7 when wizards just started winning everything and everything got too complicated with spells for every monster. Didn't like it after that. I played a lot of 2nd edition and not using half the rules, and never worrying about spells because we never got above 3rd level. Before that I played the Red Box D&D over and over again just playing the same dungeon. I've played 3 sessions of the Starter Kit dungeon, as a player and a GM, and so far I like it. Combat is fast (so far, at low level), roleplaying is easy (not too many skills to keep track off), and character backgrounds are there as part of character creation. I don't like having to look up spells - more complicated that 4th ed and I really want some spell cards, and I'm not sure the game will be fun past 5th level when wizards rule and monsters have big spell lists, but so far, it's good. Comstar fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Thank you for all the responses. Some follow up questions for everyone: - What, specifically, are other games doing that 5e fails to do? - Where does 5e fall short from a player's perspective? From a DM's? - What does higher-level play in 5e feel like? Does the system start to break down? Do certain classes/play styles get favored over others? If so, how do other games solve this problem?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:- What, specifically, are other games doing that 5e fails to do? To me the main sticking point is Theater of the Mind combat, or combat without being tied to a grid. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that in theory: my favorite game, Dungeon World, doesn't require a grid, and it still works, and there are a number of other games that don't rely on using a grid and still allow for tactical combat (including Old School Hack, 13th Age, FATE and so on). The problem is, for all the talk of TotM in 5e, the system has zero support for it. Instead of writing the game with more abstract distances and areas of effect, the game still relies on 5-foot squares, honestly. The thing is, the game still benefits from using a grid and miniatures, all this talk of Theater of the Mind is just trying to obfuscate the fact that the game actually relies on the sort of positioning that you can only reliably do while using miniatures and a grid. The reason why they're trying to obfuscate the fact that the game still works best on a grid with miniatures is anyone's guess, but I'd wager it has something to do with the backlash that both 3e and 4e received for their increased reliance on miniatures. Said backlash I actually agree with: having played 3e and 4e for years I just don't like shuffling miniatures around a grid and prefer games with more abstract positioning systems (the exception being Sacred BBQ, because while the game is based on a grid the rest of the system is so simple as to make playing it on a grid a breeze). The problem for a guy like me who doesn't like to shuffle around with miniatures is that for all the talk of Theater of the Mind, 5e actually has nothing in terms of rules to support that sort of playstyle. e: Actually, for me this same issue bleeds over to your second question. The insistence on Theater of the Mind without any rules to support the sort of abstraction it relies on is just going to be cause for arguments like "But I am totally have cover from him," "Wait, I thought I could hit all five of the goblins with my fireball, what the gently caress Gary?" and "No, you can't quite reach the orc by charging this round." Ratpick fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Measuring inches on the map is objectively better than both totm and a grid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:- What, specifically, are other games doing that 5e fails to do? Other games have WICK SICKED miniatures that cost a billion dollars and are produced by a company out of Atlas Shrugged! They sure cost a lot, but hey, MUTANT ROBOT GHOSTS WITH GUNNNNNZZZZZZZZ! *makes wheedlee-wheedlee-wheedlee sounds while air-guitaring*
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Like I literally cannot give a single reason to play 5e other then "I need to play a game with 'D&D' on the box and am physically incapable of playing a previous edition." 5e does literally nothing that an older edition does better. And it adds nothing to the mix. It's not that 5e is like, offensively bad. Nothing in 5e sticks out and rankles. It's just bland. It's the very epitome of mediocre. The dev team set out to make An Edition Of D&D with as little work as possible, and it shows throughout the entire product. If you want to play AD&D then play AD&D. If you want to play 3e/PF then play that. If you want to play 4e, well, you were never looking at 5e to begin with, likely. This isn't 4e sour grapes. This is genuine bafflement - name a thing 5e does that I can't do better with a previous edition other then "be the newest edition of D&D."
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Like I literally cannot give a single reason to play 5e other then "I need to play a game with 'D&D' on the box and am physically incapable of playing a previous edition." As much as it sucks, my groups refuses to try anything older than yesterday. But at the same time, 4e is "a game some guy on reddit said was bad" Not a defense, just explaining why I'm probably going to adopt 5e. Lightning Lord fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:To me the main sticking point is Theater of the Mind combat, or combat without being tied to a grid. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that in theory: my favorite game, Dungeon World, doesn't require a grid, and it still works, and there are a number of other games that don't rely on using a grid and still allow for tactical combat (including Old School Hack, 13th Age, FATE and so on). I agree that the way the rule book talks about combat without straight up saying "use a grid!" feels weird, like they want to have their TotM cake and eat it too. In my own session I simply applied those rules to a grid ala 3e/4e and everything worked fine. I used 5e as an excuse to not be super anal about it though. If a character can only move 6 squares but that puts her only one square away from the goblin, I'll just say "gently caress it" and move her the extra space, rather than make her suffer through a free attack while waiting for her next turn to do something. Basically I use the grid as a means of conveying general ideas about a space to the players. These creatures are behind cover, your fireball will hit everyone in this area, etc. If my players were more serious about combat mechanics I would be too, but they're not so I won't. Now, obviously, this is my own personal fix, so it's not fair to point at it and say "Look! 5e works fine!". That said, though, I think there's something to be said for a system that handwaves away certain mechanical minutiae. It would have been much harder to pitch my simpler "close enough" combat to the players if the rulebook already had explicit rules for how to use a grid. There's also no more character abilities that expect a rigid grid system so no one feels cheated out of their class benefits. But, again, the fact that I'm explaining my own fix means that something was broken in the first place...
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:Can someone summarize everyone's issues with 5e? I'm getting generally negative vibes from this thread but I feel like there are as many reasons 5e is terrible as there are people complaining about it. I've played off and on since 2nd Edition, but never enough in any of the editions to really understand where the system breaks down. I remember being excited that THAC0 was fixed in 3e, and feeling like 4e valued the minis combat above all else, but that's it. A lot of the negative people in this thread hate that 5E doesn't build solely on 4th edition and throws back to prior 4th edition games. That's all it is. WOTC is in a dammed if you do, damned if you don't situation. Build on 4th? Continue to lose the core audience that hated 4th edition. Throwback? Risk alienating the newer fans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
Page 71 of the Basic rules PDF has "variant rules" for playing on a grid. They're pretty much commonsense, and obviously how the game was actually designed to be played (for a loose definition of "designed"). The whole TotM thing is completely stupid, but it's not really the biggest problem with the game, since despite lip-service to TotM, it's clearly a minis and grid game. Main problem is throwing out class and encounter balance, and replacing it with "feel". That isn't fixable short of an overhaul. SirFozzie posted:A lot of the negative people in this thread hate that 5E doesn't build solely on 4th edition and throws back to prior 4th edition games. It's not a matter of "solely". 5E doesn't build on 4E at all, in any meaningful way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:Thank you for all the responses. Some follow up questions for everyone: 5e also seems heavy on DM fiat/interpretation of the rules. DW does that better because it's kinda built around it, and also has a lot of ways the players can interact with the fiction directly and just sort of declare certain things happen. Same with FATE. TotM has been addressed, but I'll just echo the sentiment that 5e isn't really made for it. Recycle Bin posted:
It wasn't very newbie friendly either; there were people at our table who'd never played ttrpgs before who were just generally confused by all the the stuff to fiddle with at chargen. D&D in general hasn't been good at that. The only reason most of the people I know got into 4e was because the character builder was such a huge help. Recycle Bin posted:
But if you're going to let the wizard (I keep saying wizard but this applies to clerics & casters in general) loose and have all these spells, you need to give the muggles something good to bring them up to the same level. Damage, durability, maybe special maneuvers comparable in power to spells. The 5e fighter doesn't really have that. To compare to other games, 4e has a pretty solid role set-up; pick this class for damage, pick this to protect things, pick this to debuff/annoy enemies, etc. DW has a wizard with very strong spells for both in combat and out of combat, but fighters & paladins just murder everything with ease, and the free-form nature of DW makes it very easy for a non-caster to go "I want to do thing." and the DM be like "Okay roll for thing."
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
SirFozzie posted:WOTC is in a dammed if you do, damned if you don't situation. Build on 4th? Continue to lose the core audience that hated 4th edition. Throwback? Risk alienating the newer fans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Also, a "game for everyone" is impossible, and doomed to failure. If 5E was a cohesive, game designed for a particular kind of play that just didn't appeal to my personal taste, I'd think much higher of it than I do. For example, take Dungeon World. Too DM-fiaty, not enough gameplay for my tastes, but it's a good RPG that is well-designed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:This is genuine bafflement - name a thing 5e does that I can't do better with a previous edition other then "be the newest edition of D&D." It allows you to express brand loyalty and be a good consumer without having to play something actually new I guess? Although that is probably the same thing. Grim posted:Anyone can re-invent the genre and herald in a new golden age of gaming, but it takes decades of hard work to churn out the same old poo poo Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Already sorta talked about this, but other games solve class imbalance by making the classes...well, balanced. They do it in different ways, but the main things that causes the power gap in 5e is casters getting a bunch of spells that are immensely powerful because they're assumed to be a rare commodity...except they're not really. If you're fighting 5-6 encounters a day, you only need a handful of encounter-ending spells. And I don't mean just "this meteor wipes out the goblin camp" type stuff; sending the enemy shaman into another dimension (or stunning it for one or two rounds) can effectively end a combat if the encounter was balanced around it's existence (4e wizards were very good at this sort of thing, but they were held back a bit because they were limited to 3 such spells a day). I had a feeling this would be the case. I remember wizards in 2nd edition being super fragile and almost worthless in the beginning until they leveled up, and WotC has been trying to make them a more compelling choice for new characters but ends up swinging them too far in the other direction. At least 5e forces casters to choose what spells to memorize at a time so they don't just always have access to every encounter-breaking spell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:I had a feeling this would be the case. I remember wizards in 2nd edition being super fragile and almost worthless in the beginning until they leveled up, and WotC has been trying to make them a more compelling choice for new characters but ends up swinging them too far in the other direction. At least 5e forces casters to choose what spells to memorize at a time so they don't just always have access to every encounter-breaking spell. They were always a compelling choice for new characters, because 1) most DMs are not total dicks trying to kill the party's level 1 characters, 2) parties would rest when the casters were out of spells, and 3) they had encounter-ending Sleep from the start and get more powerful from there. The only pendulum swing was 4e, everything else was all on the side of "play a caster."
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
homullus posted:1) most DMs are not total dicks trying to kill the party's level 1 characters It always really bugged me that Wizard balancing was basically contingent on daring the DM to be a dick: 1) You can take away their spell book! 2) You can continuously attack the party when they are out of spells and can't do anything! 3) They have material components, you can be totally OCD and make them keep track of what spells they have components for and make inventory management a nightmare! 4) You can kill them early and force them to roll a new character! Basically it puts the DM in a position where he has to be the buzz kill police in order to actually reign in the Wizard's antics. And then if he does the Wizard can sit there pouting because he is being singled out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:It always really bugged me that Wizard balancing was basically contingent on daring the DM to be a dick: 5: Building an enemy wizard specifically to counterspell the PC wizard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:It always really bugged me that Wizard balancing was basically contingent on daring the DM to be a dick:
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
homullus posted:They were always a compelling choice for new characters, because 1) most DMs are not total dicks trying to kill the party's level 1 characters, 2) parties would rest when the casters were out of spells, and 3) they had encounter-ending Sleep from the start and get more powerful from there. The only pendulum swing was 4e, everything else was all on the side of "play a caster." 2nd edition wizards could only memorize, like, one spell at first level and once they used it the rest of the encounter/dungeon was spent trying not to die. I like how later editions gave wizards some offensive cantrips, so they could at least participate in ranged combat between rests. Speaking of Sleep, the 5e Sleep spell only makes a creature fall asleep, not go comatose, so taking any damage or being shaken/slapped is enough to end it. I can't remember how it was in 3e/4e but I feel like this wasn't always the case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
And 6) Just make the monsters attack them, because giving fighty guys any serviceable defence mechanic is terrible MMO bullshit for babies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Littlefinger posted:And 6) Just make the monsters attack them, because giving fighty guys any serviceable defence mechanic is terrible MMO bullshit for babies. It's pretty great how much 4e hate came from GMs terrified of losing any sort of "power." Like over and over on 3e sites I see "Fighters are fine because as DM I just have all the monsters attack the big guy in the armor first!" But you let the fighter decide that...
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:It's pretty great how much 4e hate came from GMs terrified of losing any sort of "power." This is one of the weird things I've had with my DM. He hates defender marks completely (and has started making weird house rules about them) because they mean he can't ignore my warden to wander off and slap someone else without me getting in some retaliation. It's kinda maddening.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Basically it puts the DM in a position where he has to be the buzz kill police in order to actually reign in the Wizard's antics. And then if he does the Wizard can sit there pouting because he is being singled out. There used to be all sorts of terrible in-game roleplay concepts that were supposed to balance out mechanical advantages. And yet none of them ever, ever did. See also: Racism against Drow and Tieflings, an obstacle that has zero weight in a dungeon and can be circumvented with minimal effort.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
moths posted:There used to be all sorts of terrible in-game roleplay concepts that were supposed to balance out mechanical advantages. And yet none of them ever, ever did. See also: Racism against Drow and Tieflings, an obstacle that has zero weight in a dungeon and can be circumvented with minimal effort. 2e was kinda infamous for this in kits. The Swashbuckler and Bladesinger stand out here, where often times the "roleplay" balance was "every now and then, you get a plotline devoted just to you! This balances your MASSIVE mechanical benefits by"
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Going back a ways, I think 5e looks... Okay. However, to be frank, I'd much rather run or play 4e or RC D&D. The only editions that 5e is any kind of substitute for are 3.x and 2e, since that's where most of the design influence comes from. (Especially 3e, imo.) I think you'd have to be crazy to recommend Pathfinder to just about anyone right now, let alone a newbie. 5e is much better as an on-ramp at this moment, and already a better and more cohesive game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:- Where does 5e fall short from a player's perspective? From a DM's? Something that's a big sticking point for a lot of people is that 4E had very clear guidelines for encounter budgets and while the monster math may have been kind of hosed at the beginning it still wasn't as bad as 3E's CR system and they did eventually get the math straightened out, complete with very, very simple guidelines for making up your own monsters wholecloth. Next ditches that in favor of CR Mark 2 which doesn't seem to be based on any similar principles, which means making a balanced encounter is back to the realm of eyeballing it and hoping it works. Another example of this sort of regression is 4E ditched 3E's "how do we make this monster powerful, GIVE IT A HUGE LIST OF SPELLS" thing in favor of comprehensive statblocks that gave you all the information you needed right there. A giant dragon was a threat because it had fiery breath and was huge and could throw you around the room, not because it had all the spells of a 16th level Wizard or whatever. In 5E monster design is back to "here's a list of spells you'll need to cross-reference every time you use this enemy, including a bunch that aren't really relevant to its role as a thing your players fight once and kill."
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Lord of Bore posted:This is one of the weird things I've had with my DM. He hates defender marks completely (and has started making weird house rules about them) because they mean he can't ignore my warden to wander off and slap someone else without me getting in some retaliation. It's kinda maddening. Oh god, thats what your class is for. Kill your GM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Is there really much that still isn't known about 5e, and that won't be until the PHB/Monster Manual/etc. come out, or is it pretty much all 100% certain given the content in the free rule book?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
I sometimes wonder if a different group of designers could have accomplished the stated goals of Next. Which as I understand, were to create a sort of best hits of D&D, or with the early talk of modules a sort of D&D GURPS where you could use rules modules to create a specific kind of game play experience. I think that's a tall order, but I think it is possible. It seems like you'd want to start by hammering out a really solid spine, where it was explicitly clear what a PC or NPC of level y, expending a resource of type z, could and could not do. Ideally there'd be a basic mathematical formula that could tell you what sort of damage, defenses, and HP to expect at any given point. I guess optimistically, that's all still possible. Maybe there really are modules that will let players play a tactically deep balanced game, or a swashbuckler-y (actual) Theater of the Mind style game. But it seems like you'd need to develop those concurrently, at the very least for promotional purposes. Is there a reason WoTC would have a well designed module system for Next, but then not tell us? I like the tactical combat of 4th edition, but I also like planning expeditions and exploration simulation sorts of things. Is Next the game for me?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
ShineDog posted:Oh god, thats what your class is for. Kill your GM. I know, he kinda laid off it a bit recently, but right now swordmages and encounter long mark powers are verboten. The idea of defenders seems to rub him the wrong way for some reason, which is weird as he's fine playing MMOs with dedicated tanks. Apparently 'man who can yell at a giant demon so hard it ignores the other 39 people hitting it' is more acceptable than 'guy who uses magic to mess with a guy trying to hit his friends' 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Next has none of these things.wallawallawingwang posted:I sometimes wonder if a different group of designers could have accomplished the stated goals of Next. Which as I understand, were to create a sort of best hits of D&D, or with the early talk of modules a sort of D&D GURPS where you could use rules modules to create a specific kind of game play experience. I think that's a tall order, but I think it is possible. The math of D&D Next was specifically NOT worked out until near the end of the process. There are no 4E-style accurate and easy to use guidelines for making enemies by level, and there never will be, because 5E has gone back to 3.x style monster creation which makes that impossible. Modules were never worked on during most of the design process and were created and tacked on afterwards. quote:I like the tactical combat of 4th edition, but I also like planning expeditions and exploration simulation sorts of things. Is Next the game for me? D&D Next has none of these things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:I sometimes wonder if a different group of designers could have accomplished the stated goals of Next. Which as I understand, were to create a sort of best hits of D&D, or with the early talk of modules a sort of D&D GURPS where you could use rules modules to create a specific kind of game play experience. I think that's a tall order, but I think it is possible. Theoretically maybe, practically not really. Once you're trying to make a game that appeals to both people who are okay with things like martial daily exploits and Warlords and people who need a dedicated forum to hyperventilate over damage on a miss in, you're pretty much setting yourself up for failure. Remember that a vocal chunk of True D&D Fans find the concept of "solid mathematical underpinnings" to be abhorrent so even starting with that means you've already got a bunch of people telling you that you're literally Hitler. The best you can do in a situation like that is choose who you're going to cater to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
My current impression of 5e is that it's 3e with some small improvements and most of the same problems. There are some very small changes they took from 4e - look at the death and dying rules, for one. (no more instantly dead at -10 HP, three "death saves" and you're out)
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Gort posted:My current impression of 5e is that it's 3e with some small improvements and most of the same problems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
FMguru posted:One of the big issues with 3e was that it didn't really get broken until the supplement treadmill roared to life and filled shelves with tons of (official!) prestige classes and feats and spells and magic items. 5e may be slightly less burdensome and unbalanced that 3e now, but we'll see how it looks after a dozen or big meaty crunch books hit the shelves. It's nice that they made concentration a check against spellcasters going nuts with buffs; how long until you can bypass all that with an "Improved Concentration" feat? Haha no 3.x was broke as gently caress from day 1. Later 3.5 supplements had the most balanced stuff and most of the actually good (i.e. Tier 3) classes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:38 |
|
|
FMguru posted:One of the big issues with 3e was that it didn't really get broken until the supplement treadmill roared to life and filled shelves with tons of (official!) prestige classes and feats and spells and magic items. 5e may be slightly less burdensome and unbalanced that 3e now, but we'll see how it looks after a dozen or big meaty crunch books hit the shelves. It's nice that they made concentration a check against spellcasters going nuts with buffs; how long until you can bypass all that with an "Improved Concentration" feat? Eh, as 3E went along it actually got toned down some if anything, it was entirely possible to be a straight PHB 1-20 Wizard and enjoy all the dumb poo poo 3E had to offer, while later supplements tried to introduce somewhat more toned down spellcasters along with, for example, the Tome of Battle. I'm not saying that the supplement treadmill helped matters so much as 3E didn't start out okay and get progressively more and more broken, it started out broken from the word "go."
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 18:24
|
|