|
Jack the Lad posted:The whole '4e combat is long and fiddly' thing really bugs me because it's become an accepted talking point - even among fans of 4e - but in my experience it's no worse than any other RPG. this works in theory for the first few rounds when decisions are relatively simple. As soon as the conditions and modifiers begin compounding and someone takes 3-5 minutes for their turn putting together their dice pool the issue cascades with each additional player become less interested since by the time the round cycles it's been 20min.
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:I'm starting to think they're just screwing Martial-powered characters for no reason other than spite now. Great name for a capstone, too! Hey man don't be too down - they also get to turn invisible. At level 18. For 1 minute. And 4 ki points.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
i would have much less issue with magic in 5e if wizard and cleric specializations locked you out of certain other schools of magic. It's a very 2e idea, so it even fits their concept
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:Board gamers make the best RPG recruits. They're used to learning new rules and aren't put off by fantasy or sci-fi settings. Plus, playing a board game with someone is generally a much lower time commitment for finding well adjusted people. I recruited my last two RPG groups from people I was playing board games with at the time and both worked out really well. The fact that 4e heavily utilized miniatures, balanced classes, and limited resources (powers that you can represent using cards) makes it the best edition of D&D to use to recruit these people. And it's like Wizards already knows what with the existence of 4e-based board games! Piell posted:D&D is not a good generic system for two reasons. Pretty much what I wanted to say in a nutshell. I would argue, though, that D&D does have a decent place as a 'gateway drug' to the rest of the hobby. It's got the name recognition and the cultural presence needed for it. To me, 4e epitomized what you wanted people to see when you were introducing them to RPGs - it's a well-designed, balanced systems that's relatively easier to pick up than previous editions and it  . Now that they've got a baseline understand of what an RPG is, you then introduce them to a lot of other ones to help them get a feel for what they like or what they're looking for.Essential to this experience though is an excellent FLGS that's more cool business than gooncave. Before I moved to where I currently live, I knew about four systems - Paranoia (still d20ish), D&D (3e/4e), and GURPS. Through my FLGS, I've learned at least five more like FATE, WH40K, CoC, FFG Star Wars, and Gumshoe. I'll probably end up learning even more systems through weekly RPG events there and a local biannual game day. In short, D&D is a great place to start getting into the hobby. But I think 4e did a better job of easing people into than 3e did. Given that 5e is very similar to 3e, I have reason to believe that 5e will not be as good at introducing people as 4e was. Of course, this is all conjecture and I would love to end up eating crow and having a bunch of new people playing all different kinds of RPGs in the near future. It's one of those situations where I'll be sad if I'm right and happy if I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:My turns take ~90 seconds resolve tops. " I gotta disagree on that - my experience was that every turn, the majority of the players would get bogged down in analysis paralysis, and that takes long enough that others get distracted by an IC conversation, and so on. Our group just couldn't seem to learn how to go quickly, what their moves did, etc. Combat would take the vast majority of the session, every other session, for two years. Great story, but the combat was like pulling teeth. It is a failing of the system if 4 of 6 players don't seem to have a grasp of it after two years of (roughly monthly) combats. e: and this was with things like colour-coded character sheets with the totals pre worked out and so on. petrol blue fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Hey man don't be too down - they also get to turn invisible. I think we need to balance fighters by putting a cap on how many times they can attack with their swords in combat - theoretically infinite attacks is incredibly OP, especially considering that wizards can only have so many spells. In game justification: Swinging around sharp bits of metal is very tiring!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:I'm starting to think they're just screwing Martial-powered characters for no reason other than spite now. A 20th level perk that finally lets you actually use (a few of) your encounter powers as encounter powers. Yeah, that's 5E.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
LuiCypher posted:The fact that 4e heavily utilized miniatures, balanced classes, and limited resources (powers that you can represent using cards) makes it the best edition of D&D to use to recruit these people. Gamma World is a good stand in if you the group is pretty tactical, but I've honestly still had the best luck pulling people in with Fiasco and Dungeon World. E: Though I guess you're right that it's probably in contention for one of the better D&D versions for pulling in board gamers... But I guess my point is that D&D is a poo poo system for newbies all around IMO. It's just too drat heavy. ImpactVector fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Boing posted:I've never tried 4E but I've liked most of the things I've heard about it. The thing that puts me off is apparently it takes a very, very long time to do combat? Which doesn't seem very attractive for a combat-driven system. What contributes to the length? Is it a significant setback? As long as everyone is paying attention - and you should, for your out of turn actions - it runs smoothly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:It is a failing of the system if 4 of 6 players don't seem to have a grasp of it after two years of (roughly monthly) combats. I don't get how this could happen, especially with colour coding etc. I really, genuinely don't understand it. 4e's rules are intuitive enough that I was able to pick up and play without even reading them first. Once you understand movement, OAs, the four defences and the three actions - which can be explained in 5 minutes - you pretty much have it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:It takes less time at mid levels than 3e combat, ime. i've not played 3e, only 3.5, but this is very much not my experience over the last couple years of playing a 3.5 campaign. 4e combat would sometimes take entire sessions and still not be completed. We've had one combat in 18 months in 3.5 that lasted that long and it was a big boss fight culminating that section of the game. I love 4e, but combat can, and often does, get very very slow for very real reasons beyond people just not paying attention (which is also a huge issue the system does little to address)
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:The whole '4e combat is long and fiddly' thing really bugs me because it's become an accepted talking point - even among fans of 4e - but in my experience it's no worse than any other RPG. Even if you are only taking 90 seconds for your turn, the DM has to do all the monster turns, set up the map, clean up, et cetera, and that ignores the fights where the monster manages to throw you into the lava, making what would have been a 4-round fight into an 8-round fight because the party has to get you out of the lava and heal you and can't use your actions while you're KO'd, but still has to run your turns and track status effects on you because of the monster's aura and AoEs. In my experience, 4e combat is definitely longer than any other part of 4e (disproportionately so), and definitely longer than most other RPGs. Fake edit: I didn't even account for the groups where players take 90 seconds of looking at their sheet before even saying "well, let's see here . . . " 4e's emergent gameplay in combat is beautiful, but utterly at odds with brevity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
in contrast, and accordingly, one of my groups stated draws to 5e is the brevity and simplicity of combat, a lot of fiddly vestigial sheathing/drawing rules were simplified or eliminated, and the combats tend to be brutal, but quick. Most monsters going down in 2-3 hits, sometimes 1-2. there's certainly drawbacks to 5e, but there's also some really nice improvements for groups that are a bit burned out from 4e length.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
treeboy posted:i've not played 3e, only 3.5, but this is very much not my experience over the last couple years of playing a 3.5 campaign. 4e combat would sometimes take entire sessions and still not be completed. We've had one combat in 18 months in 3.5 that lasted that long and it was a big boss fight culminating that section of the game. I love 4e, but combat can, and often does, get very very slow for very real reasons beyond people just not paying attention (which is also a huge issue the system does little to address) I dunno what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:E: Though I guess you're right that it's probably in contention for one of the better D&D versions for pulling in board gamers... But I guess my point is that D&D is a poo poo system for newbies all around IMO. It's just too drat heavy. And I would say that you're right in that regardless of what edition you play, D&D is a pretty drat heavy game. It just has the extremely enviable position of being the ambassador of the hobby and while I wish that other, better systems occupied this role it's what we have to work with. My thought process basically went (Board Games --> D&D 4e-based Board Games --> D&D 4e --> Other RPGs) as an ideal line of progression.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Also, Enchanter wizards are pretty crazy: I love this because it means a Wizard's effective chance to be hit is mathematically equal to [[CHANCE OF ATTACKER FAILING WISDOM SAVE] * [CHANCE OF ATTACKER HITTING WIZARD]]. So it automatically scales with Wizard proficiency! You could have a monster with a 20% chance to pass the save and an 80% chance to hit the Wizard's AC end up with only a 16% chance of the attack actually going through. Its such a devastatingly powerful ability, but it slips through because WIZARDS. I just want to point out that because Proficiency scales from +2 to +6, or a +4 improvement, this ability is mathematically superior to +6 magical full plate with a shield in terms of its defensive ability. Assuming +6 armor even exists in the new edition? If armor doesn't scale up to +6 than lol Wizard Supremacy yet again. Also, since we have Natural Language and no longer have "charm effects" etc, nothing in the game is currently immune to the power! Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:I love this because it means a Wizard's effective chance to be hit is mathematically equal to [[CHANCE OF ATTACKER FAILING WISDOM SAVE] * [CHANCE OF ATTACKER HITTING WIZARD]]. So it automatically scales with Wizard proficiency! You could have a monster with a 20% chance to pass the save and an 80% chance to hit the Wizard's AC end up with only a 16% chance of the attack actually going through. Its such a devastatingly powerful ability, but it slips through because WIZARDS. its worse than that because its ambiguous what happens if there's no target.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:I love this because it means a Wizard's effective chance to be hit is mathematically equal to [[CHANCE OF ATTACKER FAILING WISDOM SAVE] * [CHANCE OF ATTACKER HITTING WIZARD]]. So it automatically scales with Wizard proficiency! You could have a monster with a 20% chance to pass the save and an 80% chance to hit the Wizard's AC end up with only a 16% chance of the attack actually going through. Its such a devastatingly powerful ability, but it slips through because WIZARDS. It's like someone was sitting around trying to figure out how they could make fighters practically useless while still giving the wizard an effective counter against a DM who was just throwing monsters at the wizard. It's not enough to take away the fighter's choice whether or not to be meatshield - that choice is now a wizard class feature!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
treeboy posted:its worse than that because its ambiguous what happens if there's no target. Stop hitting yourself, bugbear!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Once you understand movement, OAs, the four defences and the three actions - which can be explained in 5 minutes - you pretty much have it. I know, and it drove me nuts, but four of the players would, every time, be saying "Oh, um, what does this one do again? That's the head-shot one, right? Or is it the one that shoves them? What should I do, Petrol?". I think it was partly due to only having a combat once a month (half the sessions, session every other week), and possibly that they were wanting to remember moves in terms of the fiction ("head-shot") rather than the name or mechanical effects noted on the sheet. I dunno, it seems obvious to me too, so it's hard for me to figure out why. They were repeatedly leaning on me (player who appeared most comfortable with the system) to the point where I was uncomfortable, feeling like I was playing for them, and trying to couch things as "well, who do you think is our biggest threat?" The same group is completely happy with Dungeon World, maybe it's just the minis and 'it's TACTICAL' that made them freeze. Whatever, it was a bloody nightmare. I don't know if it's common at all, but it sounds like the sort of story that could have disproportionally influenced 5e's development - the risk of scaring off potential customers when you're the (alleged) gateway drug, etc. So instead we'll bore them with Simple Fighter! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
LuiCypher posted:It's like someone was sitting around trying to figure out how they could make fighters practically useless while still giving the wizard an effective counter against a DM who was just throwing monsters at the wizard. It's not enough to take away the fighter's choice whether or not to be meatshield - that choice is now a wizard class feature! Its also just straight up better than "imposes disadvantage" on the attack roll because, of course, 80%*80% is still 64%, whereas no monster is getting an 80% chance to pass a Wisdom saving throw (unless it has Advantage on all saves or something).
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
But boss monsters get auto-pass on X saves per day don't they? e: Enchanter tank powers, go!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
I still haven't seen the final version first hand, but in the playtest it was:quote:Beginning at 5th level, when a creature that you can see attacks you from within 50 feet of you, you can use your reaction to magically compel the attacker to direct its attack elsewhere. You must choose to use this feature before knowing whether the attack hits or misses. If you use it, the attacker must make a Wisdom saving throw against your spell save DC. A creature that cannot be charmed automatically succeeds. On a failed save, the attacker must target the creature (other than you) that is closest to it. If multiple creatures are closest, the attacker chooses which one to target. The attack is wasted if no eligible targets are within range.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:I still haven't seen the final version, but in the playtest it was: Ok, so it hopefully got changed or removed in the final version. Ideally they changed it to imposes disadvantage, things immune to charm are immune.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
LuiCypher posted:It's like someone was sitting around trying to figure out how they could make fighters practically useless while still giving the wizard an effective counter against a DM who was just throwing monsters at the wizard. It's not enough to take away the fighter's choice whether or not to be meatshield - that choice is now a wizard class feature! it's not quite *that* bad. It uses a reaction which means it can only be used once per round, so a DM dedicated to ruining a wizards day can just heap more than one monster onto them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:Ok, so it hopefully got changed or removed in the final version. Ideally they changed it to imposes disadvantage, things immune to charm are immune. The effect of Instinctive Charm is the same in the PHB as in the playtest; I'm just not 100% on whether any other limitations have been imposed, but it sounds like not. In the playtest, Wizards also had Aura of Antipathy. Like, as well as Instinctive Charm: quote:Starting at 2nd level, you radiate a magical aura that causes nearby attackers to doubt their resolve to strike you. Any creature within 10 feet of you has disadvantage on melee attacks against you while you can take actions. Creatures that cannot be charmed are immune to this effect. Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Instinctive Charm doesn't specify that the enemy has to target someone other than you, so if you're the closest target in reach, isn't it just going to hit you anyway? e: oh wait, it does say divert though... hmm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
It just wouldn't have the feel of D&D if the rules weren't complicated, vague, and subject to talmudic arguments every time a semi edge-case comes up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
FMguru posted:It just wouldn't have the feel of D&D if the rules weren't complicated, vague, and subject to talmudic arguments every time a semi edge-case comes up. It's weird, cause it said other than you in the old version, which made its use obvious, but they removed that, implying it can still hit you, but kept in the word divert which means it shouldn't 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
The attack is wasted if no eligible targets are within range. If you're an eligible target when they make the attack, you are an eligible target when they fail their save. If they could fail and still attack you that line would do nothing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
FMguru posted:It just wouldn't have the feel of D&D if the rules weren't complicated, vague, and subject to talmudic arguments every time a semi edge-case comes up. From what I've seen of interactions with players experienced with several editions, 5e seems to favor "we aren't trying to answer every question, it's GM call when the rules don't nail it down" where 3e/3.5e/Pathfinder tried to favor "we are TOTALLY going to get EVERYTHING nailed down, really." So basically, as long as you're playing with non-assholes, it's fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
seebs posted:From what I've seen of interactions with players experienced with several editions, 5e seems to favor "we aren't trying to answer every question, it's GM call when the rules don't nail it down" where 3e/3.5e/Pathfinder tried to favor "we are TOTALLY going to get EVERYTHING nailed down, really." Well, it's still best if the rules are clear and concise, and you never even have discuss interpreting them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
cbirdsong posted:Well, it's still best if the rules are clear and concise, and you never even have discuss interpreting them. I'm probably biased, because my primary relevant experience was working on a programming language standard. Of the RPG systems I've used, I think the 5e rules are one of the better sets in terms of "clear and concise". I certainly like them a lot better than any of 3e/3.5e/PF in that respect; they may or may not be as clear, but they are absolutely a great deal more concise. In practice, I think they are also much clearer. The systems which are substantially more-clear usually do a lot of this by relying more explicitly on GM interpretation. If a rule just says "with GM approval", it's totally clear but absolutely contingent on GM ruling. Do you have an example in mind of a rule set that people don't even have to discuss interpreting? I've not seen one, and I spend a *lot* of time discussing rules and formalizations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
seebs posted:From what I've seen of interactions with players experienced with several editions, 5e seems to favor "we aren't trying to answer every question, it's GM call when the rules don't nail it down" where 3e/3.5e/Pathfinder tried to favor "we are TOTALLY going to get EVERYTHING nailed down, really." In the spirit of this thread, why would I play 5e when BECMI does this so much better? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
seebs posted:Do you have an example in mind of a rule set that people don't even have to discuss interpreting? I've not seen one, and I spend a *lot* of time discussing rules and formalizations. Perfection is impossible. The question shouldn't be whether there's a rule set that's perfectly tight, but rather if a perfectly tight ruleset is even a goal of a given game. For example, Magic's comprehensive rules plus extensive card errata make it highly unlikely you'll find ambiguity. I'm sure some exists, but if you find it, the devs will probably want to fix it. In contrast, Mearls responses to any rules ambiguity is generally "up to the GM", with no apparent interest in making fixes. In an RPG, perfect clarity isn't really possible, even in principle. But a perfectly clear core game system should be desirable, and in principle possible, leaving GM rulings to areas where game mechanics are used outside of their strictly defined context. Stuff like using a Fireball power that does 5d6 Fire damage to melt an ice wall.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:The attack is wasted if no eligible targets are within range. Yeah, sorry, I'm retarded and thought the concise version you posted originally was verbatim from the new PHB and had been changed from the playtest, I didn't see where you confirmed it's the same as the playtest one
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:The people I play with are all well-adjusted friends and all except one are new to RPGs. They just react to other games like this "What's Savage Worlds? Is that like D&D? Why aren't we playing D&D? I heard Pathfinder is the new D&D. Can we play that?" It doesn't sound like your group is horrible or anything but have you ever talked to your friends and explained that as a part of the group you'd like to have a say in the games they play too? I mean, you've mentioned that you yourself aren't the biggest Next fan but you feel like you have to play D&D or a derivative or your group won't bite, but to be honest that doesn't sound like a super-fun group dynamic going on. Sure, run some D&D, but if they absolutely refuse to budge or get lovely when you say "y'know, I'd like to run something else for a while" then maybe that is a sign that you should consider looking for a different group to elfgame with. seebs posted:Do you have an example in mind of a rule set that people don't even have to discuss interpreting? I've not seen one, and I spend a *lot* of time discussing rules and formalizations. D&D 4E's rules are designed to involve a minimum of GM interpretation. What you read is how it works, specific exceptions override generalities when applicable, things are denoted using keywords all of which have very precise definitions and functions, and very, very little is left vague and up to interpretation or guesswork.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Here are a bunch more pages including the Rogue, Gnome, Half-Orc, Sailor, Charlatan and Gods. Half-Orcs aren't rapey any more! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
D&D NEXT: Thieves can't
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
I love the level 17 of the assassin, they make a save or take double damage from your attack? Does this include sneak attack? IS this at all comparable to a level 17 wizard? (no) Edit: Also can a fighter multiattack with charger? (as it's a bonus action single attack) Stormgale fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 18:49
|
|
