|
Lurks With Wolves posted:I really dislike some of the design choices in Essentials, is what I'm saying. If the Essentials fighters were the only ones in the game I'd be a little peeved, but we still had the phb fighter. Also the E-fighters were balanced pretty well with the wizard/mage so it's not like they were super horrible in the context of the game itself. I do think the wizard should've gotten a proper E-style version...I mean, we did get Elementalist eventually but a good E-controller would've been nice. Maybe something like the Bladesinger that worked from range, without the weird encounters-as-dailies nonsense.
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:30 |
|
|
Covok posted:Which ones? And why? Yeah I DM'd a Psion and basically it made me hate my life. And this wasn't a particularly spammy/Char-opped PC, either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Lurks With Wolves posted:Of all the Player's Handbook-type books in 4e, Heroes of the Fallen Kingdom is the one that gets why 4e does what it does the least. It lets elves be Dex/Int and Eladrin be Int/Cha without thinking about why Eladrin get +1 Will and Elves don't. (It's because the Eladrin's main stats both boosted Reflex so they needed a bonus in a second defense so their math checked out.) They gave Elves an Intelligence bonus, even though the whole point of the Elf/Eladrin split in the first place was so they didn't have to shove the Smug Wizard Elves and the Woodsy Ranger Elves into the same race. Changelings also get +1 to Will while having Cha + Dex/Int, so there's some precedent there. I agree that Dex/Int does miss the point of the elves, I'd have preferred it if they went Dex +Wis/Str or Wis/Cha. The defenses problem (both in redundancy and in some classes having poo poo for AC while being confined to light armor) was something they never fixed- I proposed a Dragon article to try and fix that but was told that some of the classes had lax defenses deliberately as a balancing factor (this is why you don't let editors make mechanical statements).
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
The only problems I've ever observed with psionics is Dishearten and various Battlemind hybrids like Cirno mentioned. The issue with augmentations and the fact that keeping your early powers was better in almost all cases is a pretty big fault, yeah, but doesn't strike me as something to be banned out. To bring this back around to Next/5e, how do y'all think they're going to handle psionics?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
So I've almost finished my first Elder Demon and Wizard city for Noskelhome and this is the checklist I've been running for Wizard king cities:
Anything else major I'm missing for cities?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Trollhawke posted:So I've almost finished my first Elder Demon and Wizard city for Noskelhome and this is the checklist I've been running for Wizard king cities: Maybe, maybe the preferred or unique industries, although that might get folded under daily life. That's assuming cities specialize at all. Goods and services that only occur in one city or another might be pretty good reason to get PCs to travel, if nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:If the Essentials fighters were the only ones in the game I'd be a little peeved, but we still had the phb fighter. Also the E-fighters were balanced pretty well with the wizard/mage so it's not like they were super horrible in the context of the game itself. Yeah, I'm glad that Slayers and Knights are at least balanced. WotC still thought that the world's simplest fighters and wizards that were just regular 4e wizards was the way they wanted to debut their new line of 4e books, though, which was so disheartening at the time. Anyway, this is the Next thread and not the Essentials thread, so I'm just going to say that Essentials was the start of Mearls being dumb about the relative complexity of fighters and wizards and leave it at that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:The only problems I've ever observed with psionics is Dishearten and various Battlemind hybrids like Cirno mentioned. The issue with augmentations and the fact that keeping your early powers was better in almost all cases is a pretty big fault, yeah, but doesn't strike me as something to be banned out. Unless I'm mistaken, hasn't D&D always handled psionics with a power point system? Considering this editions emphasis on tradition, we're likely going to see the main psonic classes return and likely see a few unique ones from 3.X since its this edition favorite previous edition. I don't think they're going to try anything new on that front in this edition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:Well it is more that I was concerned I was some how making a bad(der) Fighter. I am still passive aggressively making a Fighter, as I am pretty sure it will be a giant disappointment. Is this where MontrousEnvy tells me that is is just a bad class and that no one will care about bad classes? Actully Fighters are pretty cool in my opinion. They could be better but they are not bad or anything and they will still be useful. Warforged are going to be in the DMG.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Actully Fighters are pretty cool in my opinion. Well, that's just, like... your opinion, man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:
The tinfoil hat theory that Coke introduced New Coke just so that they could take it away again, all to replace the sugar in classic Coke with HFCS without anyone noticing seems particularly relevant here. 4e's entire purpose was to distract us from replacing 3.x with a cheaper, shittier lookalike! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Trollhawke posted:So I've almost finished my first Elder Demon and Wizard city for Noskelhome and this is the checklist I've been running for Wizard king cities: Wealth and Gold cap. Aka the selling and buying limit. After all the shops would have a limit to what they can buy from you and what they can sell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Covok posted:Unless I'm mistaken, hasn't D&D always handled psionics with a power point system? Considering this editions emphasis on tradition, we're likely going to see the main psonic classes return and likely see a few unique ones from 3.X since its this edition favorite previous edition. They also said that Psionics would be the main source of Int saves and they would want to bring out Psionics before bringing out Darksun which would be cool to see.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Really? Because I was following these ranks until about halfway through last year and 4e was pretty much always dominating. This was my experience, too. If you ever mentioned this, it was because 4e's audience were the fake-gamers who bought their stuff on Amazon (instead of the Real True Gamers who support their LGS) or predisposed to disproportionately buy online because something something MMO. Now without new 4e products clogging up Amazon's top-sellers, suddenly that metric has become an acceptable measure of its failure!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Thanlis posted:That is so much only true if you weren't paying attention at the time. Go back and read the commentary. Sean K. Reynolds says: I'm confused. Is the point of this quote that Sean Reynolds is insane? Because "Rangers lose 1xLevel HP and some people will need to repick some of their skills/feats/spells" is basically the easiest conversion between editions that there's been in the history of the game. They are crazy similar and the suggestion that they're even remotely as different from each other as any iteration of 3E and 4E are is loving kooky.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Yeah I DM'd a Psion and basically it made me hate my life. And this wasn't a particularly spammy/Char-opped PC, either. -7 to attacks is every bit as good as a Stun for most monsters, and casting it in an AoE 6 times per encounter ...  It needed the same kind of errata Righteous Brand did ... Basically, never use a stat mod as an extra modifier to a d20 roll, because that d20 is never going to get more sides.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:I'm confused. Is the point of this quote that Sean Reynolds is insane? Because "Rangers lose 1xLevel HP and some people will need to repick some of their skills/feats/spells" is basically the easiest conversion between editions that there's been in the history of the game. Of course in retrospect 3.5 was still so wide in the power spread that you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between "oops, I'm accidentally playing with straight 3e monsters/classes" and the default 3.5 experience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
So, I just copied the text of all the cantrips and 1st level spells into a .odt file and printed them off, so now I've got "spell cards" I can hand out to the wizard and cleric players when they have spells prepared, so they've always got their options in front of them and don't need to spool through the rules PDF. (PS gently caress the Command spell why does it have to have such an abnormally long description) I noticed an oddity, though - the Faerie Fire spell appears in the Basic Rules spell list. But nobody can cast it. It doesn't appear on the cleric or wizard spell lists. Who is it for? I seem to recall in 3e Drow had it as a spell-like ability but they're not in the Basic Rules either. Gort fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Gort posted:Who is it for? I seem to recall in 3e Drow had it as a spell-like ability but they're not in the Basic Rules either. Druids, fey warlocks, probably a cleric domain, maybe that nature paladin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
I'll never loving understand people's obsessions with edition sales data. More people buying Pathfinder than 4e doesn't make Pathfinder better than 4e, any more than, say, Katy Perry outselling The Strokes on iTunes makes Katy Perry the superior musician. Having a broad appeal almost always has more to due with a product's success than the product's quality (which is subjective anyway).
Froghammer fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Druids, fey warlocks, probably a cleric domain, maybe that nature paladin. and Drow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Druids, fey warlocks, probably a cleric domain, maybe that nature paladin. Drow, Bards, Druids, Light Domain, Fey Pact. Good spell, it's basically the offensive uses of the old Glitterdust a level earlier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
On the flip side, Trap the Soul appears in the Wizard spell list in the PHB but has no description.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
seebs posted:I know a handful of people who disliked 4e enough that they've basically gone entirely to Pathfinder and have shown no interest in 4e or 5e. Although 5e's getting some converts back, I think. This is exactly my group. We played a few weeks of 4e and one of my players basically said that if he wanted to play Fire Emblem he'd bring his DS. We never gave it another shot, moved to Pathfinder and have been playing that for years. They want to try 5e and a quick run of the first few encounters of the starter set lead to a lot of excitement. They love the FATE-style character traits, simple mechanic for Advantage, and the proficiency system. The character and feat previews have been well received too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:Well, not the dude in question, but Psionics as a power source in 4e are boring and shittily designed on the whole, so that accomodates three of the bans (Ardent, Battlemind, Psion). Right on the nail. The three power point using classes hard banned for play experience, and Runepriest soft-banned unless you can tell me precisely what it does that a cleric wouldn't and convince me you can cope with all the fiddly crap. The monk is one of the best designed 4e classes IMO (I house rule that it's martial for about the two times it matters in the entire edition). And there are two definite times you'd be able to tell 3.0 from 3.5. One is if you are using certain classes (why they powered up bard and ranger is obvious, druid ... not so much) - and the other is if you are facing golems; 3.0 golems are immune to magic (with a couple of exceptions) whereas 3.5 golems can't even deal with a simple Grease spell because it doesn't allow SR. Oh, and Haste changed drastically of course.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
I was hearing a lot of the same at gencon. It was like a broken record. Even played in a 1e game (yes 1e) and they were all liking 5e. Also talked to a few goons during a dungeon world game and they varied from neutral to positive on 5e. But they all mentioned they stay away from this thread due to the toxicity. Edit: in reply to TKIY ritorix fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
TKIY posted:This is exactly my group. We played a few weeks of 4e and one of my players basically said that if he wanted to play Fire Emblem he'd bring his DS. We never gave it another shot, moved to Pathfinder and have been playing that for years. I need to ask: what do they like about having to select a pre-determined package for their character background, instead of just making it up in concert with the rest of the group? What do they like about having "add half your level" replaced with a series of arbitrary number tables?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
ritorix posted:I was hearing a lot of the same at gencon. It was like a broken record. Even played in a 1e game (yes 1e) and they were all liking 5e. Haven't tried DW yet although the system looks fun. When we play 'not Pathfinder' it's usually to switch up genres. We play a lot of Dresden Files, Shadowrun, Paranoia and the occasion game of Cthulhutech for laughs otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:I need to ask: what do they like about having to select a pre-determined package for their character background, instead of just making it up in concert with the rest of the group? What do they like about having "add half your level" replaced with a series of arbitrary number tables? We aren't always slaves to the printed rules. The backgrounds are fine from what I've seen but we will houserule in a 'similar but different' option if the player wants to vary it up. Remember though, we've only played the starter and I (generally the DM) am the only one reading the basic rules at the moment. As for 'half your level' versus tables, which tables are you referring to specifically?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
The proficiency bonus system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:On the flip side, Trap the Soul appears in the Wizard spell list in the PHB but has no description. Some WotC forum dude has a plausible answer. quote:Trap the Soul has been subsumed by Imprisonment (specifically the 'minimus containment' option). That's what trap the soul does, imprisons the soul in a gem (check 3e version for example).
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Right on the nail. The three power point using classes hard banned for play experience, and Runepriest soft-banned unless you can tell me precisely what it does that a cleric wouldn't and convince me you can cope with all the fiddly crap. The monk is one of the best designed 4e classes IMO (I house rule that it's martial for about the two times it matters in the entire edition).
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:The proficiency bonus system. I think that's it a combination of the compressed range for things like AC and to hit rolls and the simplification in character leveling that was attractive. Again we played level one through three so that may fall apart later. I don't really think it's as much of a commentary on 5e as it is on 4e.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:I had a "holy poo poo why didn't I ever think of that" moment when I found out they made the Monk Psionic. Ki is basically the same thing anyway. Too bad the other Psionic stuff seemed lackluster. Ki being psionic power was a freaking masterstroke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Trollhawke posted:So I've almost finished my first Elder Demon and Wizard city for Noskelhome and this is the checklist I've been running for Wizard king cities: A list of factions in the city, unless the Wizard Kings domination is so complete that the only faction is themselves. (Or unless that's too small a brush stroke) neonchameleon posted:Yup. D&D is roughly 10% the size of Magic: The Gathering. And probably less than that by now. Read this as Mage:The Awakening for some reason and got confused.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
How balanced and interesting is the 5e monk in people's evaluation so far?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:I need to ask: what do they like about having to select a pre-determined package for their character background, instead of just making it up in concert with the rest of the group? What do they like about having "add half your level" replaced with a series of arbitrary number tables? Character creation in general is just the worst part of RPGs when you're just getting into them. Before you get to start having fun you have to make this utterly ridiculous number of choices, none of which you have any frame of reference to understand the consequences of. I've been running a lot of Basic for people who had never played a RPG in their life in this last year and even that system is pretty painful to get people to interact with meaningfully/funly. I'm a big fan of anything that can make the process easier to digest/quicker/less fiddly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:Sometimes it really is okay to say no to people when the thing they're doing makes no sense and you know they're psychologically and emotionally stable enough that you know you won't crush them or ruin their night by explaining that they can't use an ability that makes things glow to burn things. I tend to subscribe to the school of "yes, but" as the default answer, and I've never understood why "yes always" people bother with games as rules-heavy as Dungeons & Dragons to begin with. Players opting into the game is vital, so if a player comes up with an idea? In an early game or a demo? Run with it. Make sure they know, that the game is about them opting in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:Character creation in general is just the worst part of RPGs when you're just getting into them. Before you get to start having fun you have to make this utterly ridiculous number of choices, none of which you have any frame of reference to understand the consequences of. I've been running a lot of Basic for people who had never played a RPG in their life in this last year and even that system is pretty painful to get people to interact with meaningfully/funly. I'm a big fan of anything that can make the process easier to digest/quicker/less fiddly. If they're just trying the system out for the first time, don't make them build a character at all. Hand them some pregens and then let them decide what they want to play when they're more used to the game. Especially don't make them choose their character's life story from a drat list.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:30 |
|
|
Really Pants posted:I need to ask: what do they like about having to select a pre-determined package for their character background, instead of just making it up in concert with the rest of the group? What do they like about having "add half your level" replaced with a series of arbitrary number tables? I like the preset backgrounds for roughly the same reason I like classes; they're not perfect but they work decently, and sometimes I end up liking the results better than I liked my original impressions of what I was aiming for. I liked "half your level" better than 3e's BAB and save progressions, but I like the flatter scale of 5e's proficiency bonus better. I also like the flatter skills of 4e (and now 5e) better than the 3.x/PF system, because seriously, my PF group (now using 3.5's epic rules too) has at least some skills where the range in the party is >40.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 01:15
|
|