|
Oh, y'all think that's hilarious, but I played Neverwinter Nights and Neverwinter Nights 2 online, and I've seen more of those guys played straight than ever a man should have to face. It usually wasn't too hard to get someone to join me in purging them, though.
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:39 |
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:Oh, y'all think that's hilarious, but I played Neverwinter Nights and Neverwinter Nights 2 online, and I've seen more of those guys played straight than ever a man should have to face. By "Played straight" I mean "everyone acknowledges how drat stupid it is in-character" and "Oh great lord OH GOD I'm blind no I didn't mean to invoke you again augh!" Not as in "special mary sue" played straight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Oh, you mean played with anything close to a hint of self awareness? Na, that ain't gonna happen. Plus, they were usually the type to run to admins and DMs the second anyone made fun of their stupid, stupid characters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
I dunno, you could also play a drow cleric of the sun god as, like, an insane cultist of a death god who just happens to be worshipping and following the dictates of a perfectly normal sun god.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:I dunno, you could also play a drow cleric of the sun god as, like, an insane cultist of a death god who just happens to be worshipping and following the dictates of a perfectly normal sun god. Either way, take the absurdity of the situation and exploit it, rather than making it super special~
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
Like they aren't all going to gouge their eyes out as soon as a blindsight feat becomes available anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Do not play Dungeon World if you want a tactical game, or a game with significant character creation options. People need to stop recommending Dungeon World as the universal role playing panacea, especially since half the messages in this thread is that there's no reason to look at a single system anymore. MonsterEnvy posted:I don't view it as bad game design. It allows the statblock to not take up a ton of room. (Vampire statblock takes two pages for example) I didn't do this by making you look through the book for a bunch of spells either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Dungeon World is fun, but tactical combat is the poo poo and DW doesn't do that, so... come play my game! We've clogged up this thread enough so I've given it its own thread. Sacred BBQ has been reborn as Strike! and has its own thread here. Seriously, if you liked 4e but wanted to see some of its flaws fixed (e.g. bloat, fiddly modifiers, and combats that take hours) then you need to check out Strike! Ok. Is your vamps spellblock in your thread. I want to compare them and see which one I like better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
My thoughts: I'm actually really excited about 5e having read the Players Handbook. I was one of those who loved 4e and dislikes 3.5. This isn't as good as 4e tactically, which anyone following it I'm sure knew for years. But for the first time it feels like it's HELPING me roleplay, instead of me trying my best to come up with it off of a few mechanical scraps of flavor. In 4e I had a Satyr Bard who ran confidence tricks using some crappy gemstones, pretending they could stave off some malady. I read the backgrounds section of the 5e and there's a con man background who gets to start with stuff to pawn off like that. It's one of the options in a roll-for-your-con table if you can't think of one. It just feels supported. 3.5 went for the approach of "Try to be as simulationist of this fake fantasy world as possible, that's maximum roleplaying", which ended up actually just being a bunch of cruft. But 5e seems like it's got the balance right. I haven't seen how they do monsters, and from this thread it sounds like a disappointment. But I don't really mind. What it looks like I'm getting is a more roleplaying friendly system where combat is abstracted to more of a highlights reel with less tactical depth - and you know what? I'm fine with that. I can get good tactical combat from any number of board games - I think I'd actually welcome the change in a roleplaying game where it's more about what my avatar can do and less about how good I, hito the human being, am at running the combat system. Especially because I'm quite good at running it in 4e, and ended up having to sort of boss around the table in tense fights. That always felt vaguely against the spirit of the thing - that when the going got toughest, it became the most about my system mastery and the least about the character who's actually in this tough situation!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Ok. Is your vamps spellblock in your thread. I want to compare them and see which one I like better. First off, I'll have to walk back part of my post. Some of the stuff I called extraneous in 5e...well, now that I revisit the statblock I see that I have a bit of it too. Not as much as the 5e version - but it's not all as extraneous as I implied. Next, on a second look, where you said that the 5e vampire uses 2 pages you really meant 2 columns. So mine, being 1 column, is not 1/4 the length but rather 1/2 the length. Anyway, it's not in my thread because it's in the incomplete monster design section of the game, but I'll post it here. If I was at home I'd get you a nice screenshot and crop it but I'm on an awful slow laptop and that would take 30 minutes, no joke. This thing is trash. So here I just copy-pasted it. Where you see hashtags are where the icons will go in the final version. #H is HP, #D is damage, #S is speed and also move action, #A is attack action, #B is Role action. #M is melee, #R is ranged, #C is Close Burst. Sorry if it's a bit tough to parse. Like I said, I'd get you a screengrab if I could. Vampire Lord, Level 6 #H 52 1x1 #S 10 Champion: The Vampire acts on Initiative counts of 7, 5, and 3, but only gets one move action per round. It automatically succeeds at all saving throws. Unnatural Reflexes: The Vampire has cover against all ranged and melee attacks. Unnatural Senses: The Vampire has Advantage on any roll with his senses. His enemies have Disadvantage on any roll to hide from him. Unnatural Stealth: The Vampire has Advantage on any attempt to hide and can always move absolutely silently. Strong Willed: Whenever the Vampire would be Dazed, Stunned, Panicked, Dominated, or Incapacitated, it first makes a saving throw to try to avoid the effect. It does not automatically succeed at these rolls. Weaknesses: While exposed to sunlight, the Vampire is weakened and takes ongoing 3 damage. Any character may spend an Attack action to raise a holy symbol to keep a vampire away. Until the end of the character’s next turn the Vampire may not move adjacent nor make any melee attack against her. Charm Spell #A At-Will #R10 #D3 Target is blinded (save ends) Unnatural Strength #A At-Will #M #D 3 Target is thrown 5 squares. If it hits a wall, it takes 1 damage for each unused square of forced movement. Drink Blood #A At-Will #M #D 2 2 damage and the Vampire regains Hit Points equal to twice the amount of damage dealt with this power. The target takes a strike and if they finish the combat with enough strikes to gain the Injured Condition, they instead gain the Infected Condition and will turn into a Vampire if not cured. Stunning Spell #A Encounter #C10 #D3 Target is stunned (save ends) Word of Command #B At-Will Target’s move action is chosen by the Vampire at the start of the target’s turn (save ends) First failed saving throw: Target is dominated (save ends) Second failed saving throw: Target is completely enthralled by the Vampire until the end of the encounter (and possibly beyond, depending on how things end up). They get their full complement of actions but now they’re playing for the bad guys. Call Swarm #B Encounter At the end of the Vampire’s next turn two swarms of biting bats appear and act immediately. Mist Form #S At-Will The Vampire turns into mist. It cannot attack or be attacked while in this form. It may revert back to its normal form as a move action.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
hito posted:My thoughts: I'm actually really excited about 5e having read the Players Handbook. I was one of those who loved 4e and dislikes 3.5. This isn't as good as 4e tactically, which anyone following it I'm sure knew for years. But for the first time it feels like it's HELPING me roleplay, instead of me trying my best to come up with it off of a few mechanical scraps of flavor. Here the monsters from the first adventure. http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/HoardDragonQueen_Supplement1.pdf I really like them, lots of other people here dislike them. Make your own call.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:First off, I'll have to walk back part of my post. Some of the stuff I called extraneous in 5e...well, now that I revisit the statblock I see that I have a bit of it too. Not as much as the 5e version - but it's not all as extraneous as I implied. It looks pretty good. But I personally like the 5e vamp statblock more if only for it's flavor, regen and the fact it's a bit harder to kill then yours.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
I've been playing around with the Ranger to figure out if it sucks or not. Not giving the full boring details this time, just the highlights. 10th level, same as the Eldritch Knight I did earlier. Wood elf ranger, level 10, 18dex/16wis/14con ASIs/Feats: Sharpshooter, +2 dex Relevant class features: Extra Attack, Archery, Giant Killer, ignores cover, no long range disadvantage (600 foot range without penalty). Attack Routine: 2 longbow shots at 1d20+10 for 1d8+4 damage (17 average if all hits, and I'm not factoring in possible crits for any of these) If you have advantage, Sharpshoot: 2 shots at 1d20+5 (roll twice) for 2d8+8 each (34 average if all hits) Sharpshooting without advantage may not be worth the -5 accuracy loss. Math required.  Max damage potential: Sharpshooting a large target with Hunter's Mark already in place, with a 3rd-level Hail of Thorns cast as a swift action. 2 shots at 1d20+9 for 2d8+8+1d6 damage each, and one Hail of Thorns: 3d10, DC15 dex for half. If they fail to save and it all hits, average damage is 57.5. 41 without the Hail of Thorns, repeatable every round. A comparable wizard spell at this level is cone of cold, 36 average damage if the save fails. With the cold-type Elemental Adept feat and a white dragon sorcerer, you are looking at 8d8, 'brutal 1', +CHA to damage, and you could spend sorc points to grant disadvantage on the save. About 49 damage if they fail the save, 2 uses of it at this level. There are other weird builds you can do, like a tanky medium armor+shield+rapier ranger. +1AC fighting style (~20AC), horde breaker, multiattack defense, sentinel feat. Being in melee means concentration spells like Hunters Mark or even Barkskin might not be a great idea, but swift spells like Ensnaring Strike (restrains target) are worthwhile. This build would be sturdy, have the 3 main saves as its stats (dex/wis/con) and do more damage than a fighter trying to fill the same role.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
I guess it's up to me to be relentlessly negative~! A lot of stuff on Next that I see is couched in hopefuls. "They WILL make a better fighter..." "They WILL add more things to martials..." "I WILL be able to make a defender..." "They'll have lots of interesting monster types..." No you won't. No they won't. I keep saying that 5e is a 2001 game for a reason. Next didn't just abandon basically all 4e design, it abandoned most 3e design, too. 5e isn't meant to be a little of 3e and a little of 4e and a little of AD&D. 5e is meant to be "3e, done again." And part of that means going back to and only to early 3e materials. See, the thing is, as terrible as 3e Core was, 3.x as it got older got more and more interesting and inventive. But 5e has none of that. In fact, 5e has been slowly killing whatever small innovations it ever had, while ensuring none of the innovations of past editions make it in. Look at the Eldritch Knight. That is straight up pre-3.x class design right there. A fighter who can also sometimes cast a few magic spells, nothing else. No synergy at all, no new mechanics, no bridging the gap between actions, no even ATTEMPT to make anything more then an exceptionally lazy fighter and wizard mashed together. See I'm not judging 5e by AD&D or by 3e Core. It's not 2001. It's 2014. You compare the product to everything that came before. Lastly, what we've seen time and time again by Mearls is that 5e is his baby. This is HIS D&D, done the way he wants it to be. You are absolutely never going to see a warlord because this is HIS D&D and he loving hates warlords. It's why he refuses to back away from supporting Zak S and RPG Pundit - nobody's going to tell him who or what is bad for HIS D&D. Like, look at 4e Essentials. Now realize that was Mearls being daring and creative, which is isn't going to be for 5e in awhile. Not to mention they've stated rather often that they don't plan on doing the crunch treadmill this time around. The only way 5e sees actual expansion is if Mearls get's laid off. Until that happens, don't hold your breath for any of those "hopefuls" to come true. You're talking up potential new classes in the game that literally nerfed monks and fighters after being told they might be too weak.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Continuing from earlier: You could do the same Sharpshooter thing with a wood elf rogue, missing out on the accuracy bonuses and Extra Attack, but gaining +5d6 sneak damage. You could also probably pull off advantage quite often with Cunning Action-Hide from a long range or behind cover. At that point, the damage gain from Sharpshooter might not be worth the -5 accuracy loss, since so much damage comes from sneak attack. 20 DEX since rogues get 3 ASIs/feats by 10th level, so +4 dex for them. Attack Routine: 1 longbow shot at 1d20+9 for 1d8+5d6+5 damage (27 average if all hits, not factoring in possible crits for any of these). If you have advantage, Sharpshoot: 1 shot at 1d20+4 (roll twice) for 2d8+10+5d6 (36.5 average if all hits). If you manage to crit, that's 4d8+10d6+10 damage (63 avg). Max damage potential: That's pretty much it, since you can't juice this up with spells (arcane trickster gets illusion and enchantment only).
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
Wouldn't Horde Breaker be better on an archer ranger than Giant Killer since Giant Killer only works on bigger things within 5 ft of you and thus means you're probably eating disadvantage on the attack (unless sharpshooter fixes this?)? Horde Breaker means that as long as one dude is within 5 ft of another, you get a free attack, no matter if you're using extra attack, multi-attack, haste or whatever. That seems like it'd come up more often than having a Large+ dude run up within 5 ft of you when you're kiting as a wood elf with a longbow. Long distance as a wood elf assassin means you have better chance of setting up surprise rounds and then kiting away using your level 2 extra action to fire up Dash/Disengage/Hide every round (which could make you more mobile than a monk in many cases). Advantage on your attacks since you're attacking before other guys, and a crit if the target is surprised because it didn't see you at hundreds of feet out. Then you can back off, end the fight, rehide and re-engage to try to surprise them again maybe. Though that'd be harder to get the DM to agree with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
ritorix posted:I've been playing around with the Ranger to figure out if it sucks or not. Not giving the full boring details this time, just the highlights. Your Eldrich Knight is a bit flawed as you made that before we could see all the players handbook details on it. Because it gets more then just spells. I don't know what it gets however. Other then one power that I heard lets it cast a spell once as part of it's extra attack actions. ProfessorCirno posted:Look at the Eldritch Knight. That is straight up pre-3.x class design right there. A fighter who can also sometimes cast a few magic spells, nothing else. No synergy at all, no new mechanics, no bridging the gap between actions, no even ATTEMPT to make anything more then an exceptionally lazy fighter and wizard mashed together. You do know that the Eldrich Knight has more powers that help it with synergy. I believe one of them was to cast and attack in the same round. Also Monks and Fighters are pretty drat strong despite what you think. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
LightWarden posted:Wouldn't Horde Breaker be better on an archer ranger than Giant Killer since Giant Killer only works on bigger things within 5 ft of you and thus means you're probably eating disadvantage on the attack (unless sharpshooter fixes this?)? Horde Breaker means that as long as one dude is within 5 ft of another, you get a free attack, no matter if you're using extra attack, multi-attack, haste or whatever. That seems like it'd come up more often than having a Large+ dude run up within 5 ft of you when you're kiting as a wood elf with a longbow. Yeah looks like they changed Giant Killer, used to be an accuracy boost, which synergized nicely with sharpshooter. So either Horde or Slayer it is. The free attack from Horde is going to be better most of the time. As for play style, the ranger version has better burst from sharpshooting+swift spells, but the assassin would have better surprise round burst and more damage on typical rounds. Survivability is probably a wash; both are in stealth-friendly armor with average AC, ranger has better HP, rogue has dodge and evasion. A better idea may be ranger 5/rogue 5. Extra Attack, Cunning Action, dodge and assassination.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
I remember hearing that Colossus slayer deals extra damage to injured foes or something like that. Going to try and find out were I saw that or if I remembered correctly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I guess it's up to me to be relentlessly negative~! Why do you believe this is someone's responsibility? 5E is retrograde relative to 4E. It is also a massively better system than 3E, 3.5, or Pathfinder right out of the box. Simple changes like the ability score limits and the fact that feats are now meaningful abilities from an optional rule and not fiddly bonuses everyone has 12 of (which range from "mandatory for every character of that class" to "literally does nothing as written" in terms of utility) basically ensure that. I honestly hope it doesn't have as many additions and splatbooks as AD&D, 3.X, 4E, or Pathfinder because the one lovely thing every single one of those systems has in common is obscene system bloat and the gap between a "good sword guy" and "bad sword guy" dependent entirely on system mastery and which splatbooks the DM arbitrarily allows. A one-story house with a rotten foundation is more stable than one with a penthouse, a football stadium, and a cathedral arbitrarily bolted onto the top of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:I honestly hope it doesn't have as many additions and splatbooks as AD&D, 3.X, 4E, or Pathfinder because the one lovely thing every single one of those systems has in common is obscene system bloat and the gap between a "good sword guy" and "bad sword guy" dependent entirely on system mastery and which splatbooks the DM arbitrarily allows. A one-story house with a rotten foundation is more stable than one with a penthouse, a football stadium, and a cathedral arbitrarily bolted onto the top of it. On this note they stated they plan on focusing more on quality adventures then splats. As they don't want to over saturate the market. It showed a decent amount of insight on their part. Mearls posted:By sharing the rules, we’re making it easier than ever for people to get into D&D. For way too long the rules have been a deterrent. So, it’s really about focusing on what’s important – campaigns and adventures – and selling that, while removing barriers to entry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
I found a positive thing in the monster section of the new supplement: Troll special ability "Regeneration" works in a straightforward, flavourful way instead of the various clusterfucks it has been in certain previous incarnations. This is because it works exactly the same way it did in 4e. Still a positive though. e: Mike Mearls posted:My dream would be a world where... people are seeing exciting new ideas and concepts for the game Me too, Mike. Me too. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Yeah looks like they changed Giant Killer, used to be an accuracy boost, which synergized nicely with sharpshooter. So either Horde or Slayer it is. The free attack from Horde is going to be better most of the time. That does sound like it would be better at covering the rogue's glaring problem with facing more than one opponent in a fight, with both extra attack and horde breaker. Each of those attacks would also benefit from Assassination as well. Pity that we're back to the 3e way of "pick a gimmick, do it forever" for heavy martials, though even the rogue has better out-of-combat utility than the poor fighter. And I'm still not thrilled with the whole save/proficiency/ability score/feat routine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
Also the Totem barbarian when using his Bear spirit looks to be pretty much the best tank in the game. These are the powers the Bear Totem gives you. Bear: During a rage, gain resistance against all damage types except psychic. Bear: Doubled carrying capacity , advatage when breaking things. Bear : While Raging, creatures within range have disadvantage if they attack anyone but you. These powers can apparently be mixed and matched with other Animal totem powers as well. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:On this note they stated they plan on focusing more on quality adventures then splats. As they don't want to over saturate the market. It showed a decent amount of insight on their part. How unfortunate, given Mearl's track record with adventure modules.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
A bare-chested tank would be pretty funny. Shield, 16dex/16con, damage resist while raging...this can work somehow. Wolf spirit though because giving advantage to your whole team just by standing next to the target is awesome. They are farming out the adventures. Hoard of the Dragon Queen - Credits Kobold Press Designers: Wolfgang Baur, Steve Winter Editor: Miranda Horner Interior Illustrators: Aaron Hübrich, Tyler Jacobson, Guido Kuip, Marcel Mercado, Bryan Syme Cartographer: Jared Blando Art Director: Marc Radle Producer: Wolfgang Baur
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
Just melee attacks get advantage from the wolf barb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
Obligatum VII posted:How unfortunate, given Mearl's track record with adventure modules. He won't be making any of them. So you don't have to worry about that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
hito posted:My thoughts: I'm actually really excited about 5e having read the Players Handbook. I was one of those who loved 4e and dislikes 3.5. This isn't as good as 4e tactically, which anyone following it I'm sure knew for years. But for the first time it feels like it's HELPING me roleplay, instead of me trying my best to come up with it off of a few mechanical scraps of flavor. I'd concur that the backgrounds and chargen idea generation systems are some of the best parts of the edition - but they're also among the most lift-out-able parts of the edition. Nail them on to 4e instead!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I'd concur that the backgrounds and chargen idea generation systems are some of the best parts of the edition - but they're also among the most lift-out-able parts of the edition. In the packet for Dead In Thay, skills were basically 3 profs from your background and 1 from your class, giving even more customizability. Now it's 2:2 (Rogue and IIRC Bards getting more from class, in both cases) Seriously, gently caress class skill lists anyway. I'm also still annoyed that Barbarians only get their melee stuffz when attacking "using Strength" P.d0t fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
My impression, from what I'd seen said previously, was that the "how do you tune this, how do you make up new numbers" stuff was in the DMG. So until that's out, I'm not sure how I'd judge whether it's any good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
On Fighters and noncombat utility, this is pretty minor and really just brings them into parity with the other classes in this one way, but here's another way in which 5E's treatment of martials beats the poo poo out of 3E's: the 5E Fighter has a better skill list (including Perception for example) and with the Background system will end up with basically the same number and breadth of skills as nearly every other class. In 3.5 and Pathfinder they shared the lowest quantity of skillpoints and shittiest class skill list with two classes: Wizard and Cleric, otherwise two of the three most powerful classes ever printed in any editions of the game. And it was less of a downside for the Wizard than the Fighter, because Int was their primary stat so a decently-built Wizard would really have 5-7 skills at creation instead of 2 anyway. EDIT: I guess the Sorcerer skill list was pretty hosed up too, with only 2 skill points per level and Bluff being the only Charisma-based skill a Charisma-primary class that was supposed to be able to function as a face or party leader as one of its perks and features to distinguish it from Wizard, but it's hard to cry for a primary arcane caster and of course Pathfinder fixed their skill list more than the Fighter's. Baku fucked around with this message at 10:27 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:16
|
|
|
Got my copy yesterday and reading through the book the best part to read me was the mounted combat feat, which has various benefits but one of them is "You gain advantage on all attack rolls on creatures smaller than your mount" which lead to me imagining a squad of rogues on horses (or enlarged horses) running around sneak attacking everything in sight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
Stormgale posted:Got my copy yesterday and reading through the book the best part to read me was the mounted combat feat, which has various benefits but one of them is "You gain advantage on all attack rolls on creatures smaller than your mount" which lead to me imagining a squad of rogues on horses (or enlarged horses) running around sneak attacking everything in sight. I am imagining Kobold Rogues on Giant Lizards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 11:05
|
|
|
Have there been any previews of DMG material like there was for the other books? Pictures of pages, the table of contents, etc. I really want to wait for it to come out before deciding if the system's worth my time and money. I'd likely be the DM in our group and I'm curious on what advice it has on creating new encounters, monsters and items. I'm kinda torn because the PHB stuff looks like you can actually do some pretty neat stuff as a player, but the monster design is really lame and hard to decipher after 4E. I was terrible as a DM in 3E because I could never get the "feel" of CR and always had trouble making an appropriate encounter for my players, so from a glance it appears that this system will really hit my weakness as a DM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I guess it's up to me to be relentlessly negative~! Thanks for posting that. People seem very quick to forget* that 4e existed. "Next is a good game" only holds in a reality in which 4e never existed. *Well, a significant part of Next's edit: Another good thing about Next — the art/aesthetics. Although I love 4e's color-coded layout for its ease of use, the sans serif font used for powers and other rules-bits gives it a "modern* look" that seems at odds with the game's atmosphere, and while I love William O'Connor's class iconics, the rest of the art is pretty meh. Next's art is really evocative, and really wish 4e could benefit from the same flavorful presentation. *I think modern mechanics and minimalist/"dry" visuals aren't inextricable — clear, easy to use layout and modern mechanics can be perfectly coupled with more baroque/"fantasy-esque" art and visuals. Nancy_Noxious fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
Nancy_Noxious posted:Thanks for posting that. People seem very quick to forget* that 4e existed. "Next is a good game" only holds in a reality in which 4e never existed. What? Nobody is forgetting that 4e exists, not a page can go by where the two aren't (favorably or unfavorably) compared and contrasted. 5e can be a good game even with 4e existing because it's a good game. That isn't to say its perfect, but it allows you to reasonably achieve the stated goals of its design. These are related but separate products, and without 4e there are aspects (significant or otherwise) of 5e that would not exist. Aspects for which 5e is a better off. Mechanically I enjoy the structure and design sense of 4e more, but so far I'm having more fun with 5e.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
It's probably more fair to say that the team did not do a good job building upon previous D&Ds to create Next than to say that Next isn't a good game. It's playable and people like it, so of course people will argue that it's a good game (qualifying that for them "fun" = good). What's closer to the issue (and easier for everyone to agree) is that the Mearls & co absolutely did not best utilize the resources they had available, or build upon anything learned in 4th - other than "keep the toxics happy."
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
5e is good in that it is better than some of the editions that came before it in at least some way. However, beyond that, it falls flat when trying to measure up to other qualities.MonsterEnvy posted:On this note they stated they plan on focusing more on quality adventures then splats. As they don't want to over saturate the market. It showed a decent amount of insight on their part. They (mostly Mearles) said a lot of things. That doesn't mean they will actually do them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:39 |
|
|
moths posted:It's probably more fair to say that the team did not do a good job building upon previous D&Ds to create Next than to say that Next isn't a good game. It's playable and people like it, so of course people will argue that it's a good game (qualifying that for them "fun" = good). What's closer to the issue (and easier for everyone to agree) is that the Mearls & co absolutely did not best utilize the resources they had available, or build upon anything learned in 4th - other than "keep the toxics happy." Yes and no. The design of 5e quite aptly identified and improved upon flaws in combat flow and speed of 4e. Also the problem is not that people equate fun with "good" it's that most people don't understand the underlying mechanics of "fun" Generally one can define fun as effective and efficient agency within a defined system of options. This is the basic concept behind "my choices matter" Most "unfun" games (or games that *become* unfun as they progress) suffer from a breakdown of that construct. For 4e it was the efficiency aspect at mid to high levels, for 3.5 it was both efficiency and effectiveness (some classes had very little ability to act as agents within the system, the system was also needlessly and pointlessly complex). 5e is a huge improvement in the latter, and time will tell if effective agency is well balanced for all players classes and so forth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 16:41
|
|