|
D&D NEXT: Why did they bring this back? WHY?
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
Agent Boogeyman posted:Why did they bring this back? WHY? This was the thing that made me swear to never again run 3E or PF. I hate it hate it hate it. It's just as unintuitive and cumbersome to deal with as it was in 3E. Sorry, this was the deal breaker, I'm not running 5E. I'll gladly play in it, but I will never, ever, take the GM's helm at any point for this edition. I'm not dealing with the headache of trying to figure out the arbitrary nature of setting difficulty for encounters again, only to be proven wrong when they're actually set in motion. You know what would have been better? A loving exp budget that makes sense, based on the party's level, and you can adjust the budget to higher or lower level tiers in order to appropriately gauge an encounter's difficulty relative to party size and level. You know, kind of like how 4E fixed this loving problem Jesus Christ I am angry at elfgames. Just FYI, Pathfinder uses xp budgets for encounter creation. It has a table like the above, but that's just the math already done for you. Encounter creation can still be a little wonky, but that's just monster differences.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
moths posted:Uugh I finally got the "hey everybody is excited about Next and now we're all playing this poo poo-rear end system!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
I played 4e for a bit recently. I played an Avenger who ran around throwing dice at people in a bunch of combat encounters where the other guys in my party threw down debuffs on enemies and taunted a bunch of them into attacking them. Afterwards I was a bit worried I wasn't holding up my end so I reworked my avenger and increased their DPS significantly by cross classing with ranger and throwing more dice at the enemy. Then I realised that the best way of upping my damage further was with a specific weapon that increased my crit range. Unfortunately it only dropped from Onyxia and she's been deep breathing a shittonne more recently. Besides, I had to go and check on the guild website to see if I had the DKP to buy the weapon when we were done, turns out I shouldn't have been missing all those MC runs. Now I play DnD Next and have a Warlock who invades his enemies minds and convinces them that they're crazy so they murder each other.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
This thread sure reads like a blast from 2008.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:I played 4e for a bit recently. I played an Avenger who ran around throwing dice at people in a bunch of combat encounters where the other guys in my party threw down debuffs on enemies and taunted a bunch of them into attacking them. You are so clever with your references to 4e being like WoW, please keep posting 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Just FYI, Pathfinder uses xp budgets for encounter creation. It has a table like the above, but that's just the math already done for you. Encounter creation can still be a little wonky, but that's just monster differences. That didn't make it any less arbitrary or difficult to manage. As a GM I enjoy making my OWN monsters and enemies. I rarely, if ever, take things directly from the books, and when I do I like to modify and change what's there. The CR "system" is an unnecessary level of complexity that makes it that much HARDER to create things out of wholecloth. I like to see the inner workings of the system so that I can create on my own without fear of "breaking" anything. On top of this, as a seasoned GM I know how often you have to make poo poo up on the fly, and I like having a system that allows me to DO this. Even in PF, you STILL have to take the CR "Level * 1.5" bullshit into account when you're doing this, even if its already spelled out for you, and it WILL take a huge chunk of time to do this. OR I could go and run 4E, just kind of give a cursory glance at something and add or subtract things as appropriate in five seconds and know it will work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:I played
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Mage Armor is +2 AC more than a Breastplate, which is 14 + Dex (max 2). Edit: And you can wear a shield with Mage Armor. A bard could have 20 AC by the second time they get an ability increase.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Power Player posted:If it makes you feel any better, I'm going through Encounters as a straight-up fighter for 20 levels or however long it lasts because I am stubborn. I actually thought about that, and then briefly considered the necromaster horde, but in the end it was the motivation I needed to finally take a serious shot at running 13th Age organized play.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:I guess the idea is that while the to-hit stuff is bounded, the orcs' damage won't scale up, so higher level PCs might get hit just as often but for less of their HP, %-wise. At the point where they start slinging around shittons of orcs it pretty much becomes a check to see if you have AoE or not. Unfortunately, outside of daily-use AoE spells, the only at-will forms of clearing out hordes are multiattacks (including bonus action attacks), Ranger level 3/11 and maybe some cantrips such as Acid Splash and Eldritch Blast. Unfortunately, HP 15 means that it's incredibly hard for you to get "one shot, one kill" since damage doesn't scale up that fast- even with a 20 in your attack stat and a +3 weapon you're looking at 1[W]+8 damage, meaning you need a weapon that can consistently get a 7 or higher (so a +3 2d6 weapon, probably) or you'll need to make two attacks per target. And anything you don't kill in one shot needs its HP tracked. If you can get enough damage to one or two-shot your opponent, with enough of them it becomes an exciting game of "I kill an orc". But even if you're willing to expend daily resources to wipe dudes off the map, just a simple fireball won't cut it. Throw enough weak enemies at the party and it becomes a question of spell area rather than damage- killing them by expending as few spell slots as possible. Unless the orcs are packed shoulder-to-shoulder you're probably going to need something like meteor swarm or fire storm to hit most/all of them; a 20 ft diameter spell just won't be enough. I miss minions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
LightWarden posted:I miss minions. I imagine there's some bizarre logic that it's somehow simpler to have low-level enemies become killable in 1-2 attacks and thus usable as a large mass of enemies at higher levels rather than create a whole new monster type that is killable in 1-2 attacks and thus usable as a large mass of enemies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:I guess the idea is that while the to-hit stuff is bounded, the orcs' damage won't scale up, so higher level PCs might get hit just as often but for less of their HP, %-wise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Power Player posted:This is honestly really bugging me. I really don't get why Dex classes are basically going to have the same AC as a dude in full plate, with the only difference being that the dude in full plate can take a feat that reduces nonmagical weapon damage by 3.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Power Player posted:I dunno about the Math Wringer they have, considering that Jack has posted numerous times how poorly the fighter scales at upper levels, and how the best fighter is a Crossbow Fighter. I don't think a single person on here uses Math Wringer nonfacetiously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Power Player posted:This is honestly really bugging me. I really don't get why Dex classes are basically going to have the same AC as a dude in full plate It's basically just a way of keeping everyone's math roughly the same but obfuscating it by making you jump through hoops. 4e was good at this, too, as demonstrated by the plethora of DEX-primary, light armor Strikers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
LuiCypher posted:You are so clever with your references to 4e being like WoW, please keep posting So I mean, obviously I was being facetious, but this is basically the story of why I stopped playing 4e. I played that character, ended up actually making DPR spreadsheets and stopped when I realised it was literally what I did when I played WoW. I tried to reconcile this with other classes but I always ended up back there. So when I'd look at the Warlock's abilities, it says "Mind Control x and he attacks y" but to me that's just "Stun x, y takes damage." Not using persuade and intimidation checks alongside my own wit as a player to convince a gobbo that his mates are out to get him. If D&D is just a skirmish wargame with an occasional dungeon puzzle then I'd rather play an MMO or Neverwinter Nights. For all its mechanical faults in terms of balance, 3.5 is an edition I genuinely enjoyed more than 4e. I mean perhaps it's because as a gaming group none of us ever carried particular attachment to the concept of "Pure Fighter," and none of us were ever going to invalidate each other with God Wizards. We'd figure out something interesting we wanted to mess with and mess with it like an improvised weapons fighter who hit people with a painting. Or my Rogue with a ring of jumping who thought he was a final fantasy Dragoon. The scenarios we'd play out would vary from your standard dungeon crawl to a murder mystery where we had to charm information out of witnesses and break into properties to get evidence. I think 3.5's massive spell list and probably 5e as is now encourages that line of gameplay. What attracted me to Warlock in 5e wasn't "Oh poo poo what can I do with this in combat?" but "Oh poo poo this guy can speak to anything at level 1." 4e is much more combat driven and as such encourages a really significant focus on combat. If that isn't what you want out of D&D, that's cool. I just think I get combat better out of a videogame. What I prize out of D&D is stuff I don't get out of anything else. Obviously there could be large parts of 4e that I unfortunately missed out on as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
It is awesome that people think "verisimilitude" and "4e is WoW" are good and clever things to say again, I hope soon we can go back to talking about how females should have Strength and Intelligence penalties
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
What I'm gleaning from this is that you like being able to Make declarative statements about the game world using magic or magic items. D&D can definitely be that game, but then why have classes that don't get access to magic?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Warlocks can't 'speak to anything' at level 1 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Shut Up and Sit Down head honcho Quintin Smith decided to write a review of Next, and apparently explain why it's the most important, newbie-friendly, "ergonomic" version of D&D in the last 20 years. The guy really has no history with the franchise, but still trots out tired stuff about 4e having "macros" and being like an MMO (meanwhile he praises Next for being like a video game). Normally I wouldn't care about some random review, but this is really heartbreaking for me since I know a lot of board game people who trust the guy for his opinions on that industry, and now this article is going to be the first exposure to D&D for a lot of them. http://kotaku.com/its-the-perfect-time-to-play-dungeons-dragons-1636855000
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
For me, nothing beats the old "while 4e had whole chapters on improvisation, skill checks and skill challenges to facilitate creative handling of noncombat encounters, 3e had a bunch of spells to invalidate a hapless DM's work, ergo roleplaying not roll-playing  ".
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Shut Up and Sit Down head honcho Quintin Smith decided to write a review of Next, and apparently explain why it's the most important, newbie-friendly, "ergonomic" version of D&D in the last 20 years. The guy really has no history with the franchise, but still trots out tired stuff about 4e having "macros" and being like an MMO (meanwhile he praises Next for being like a video game). "You should play the new edition of D&D because it's kind of like Dragon Age except this time you can have sex with everything."
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Ready your grog bingo cards, folks; we've got a live one.Yorkshire Tea posted:So I mean, obviously I was being facetious, but this is basically the story of why I stopped playing 4e. I played that character, ended up actually making DPR spreadsheets and stopped when I realised it was literally what I did when I played WoW. Did you know you can make DPR spreadsheets in 5e? Hit the question mark by my name for examples! You can also do it for 3.5 or any other edition or version of any game in which DPR exists. In fact, it's far easier to do so in games like 5e or 3.5 where your attack routine is more or less static as opposed to in 4e where every class has valid, meaningful options that are not just "I full attack". Also, the choice to make spreadsheets is yours and yours alone. Don't make them if you don't enjoy it, and don't blame 4e for your decision to do it if you don't enjoy it. Yorkshire Tea posted:I tried to reconcile this with other classes but I always ended up back there. So when I'd look at the Warlock's abilities, it says "Mind Control x and he attacks y" but to me that's just "Stun x, y takes damage." Yorkshire Tea posted:We'd figure out something interesting we wanted to mess with and mess with it like an improvised weapons fighter who hit people with a painting. Or my Rogue with a ring of jumping who thought he was a final fantasy Dragoon. Yorkshire Tea posted:Not using persuade and intimidation checks alongside my own wit as a player to convince a gobbo that his mates are out to get him. Yorkshire Tea posted:The scenarios we'd play out would vary from your standard dungeon crawl to a murder mystery where we had to charm information out of witnesses and break into properties to get evidence. Yorkshire Tea posted:I think 3.5's massive spell list and probably 5e as is now encourages that line of gameplay. What attracted me to Warlock in 5e wasn't "Oh poo poo what can I do with this in combat?" but "Oh poo poo this guy can speak to anything at level 1." 4e is much more combat driven and as such encourages a really significant focus on combat. Yorkshire Tea posted:If that isn't what you want out of D&D, that's cool. I just think I get combat better out of a videogame. What I prize out of D&D is stuff I don't get out of anything else. Yorkshire Tea posted:If D&D is just a skirmish wargame with an occasional dungeon puzzle then I'd rather play an MMO or Neverwinter Nights. What part of 4e prevents you from playing out scenarios that vary from your standard dungeon crawl? In what ways is 4e more combat driven than 3.5, specifically? I love that the root of your entire gripe with 4e is apparently that it doesn't have 3.5's massive spell list. Name some 3.5 effects and we'll tell you how to replicate them in 4e. Yorkshire Tea posted:For all its mechanical faults in terms of balance, 3.5 is an edition I genuinely enjoyed more than 4e. I mean perhaps it's because as a gaming group none of us ever carried particular attachment to the concept of "Pure Fighter," and none of us were ever going to invalidate each other with God Wizards. God Wizards are not some weird hypothetical. It's literally just the result of writing Wizard on your character sheet and picking basically any spell that doesn't just deal damage. Yorkshire Tea posted:Obviously there could be large parts of 4e that I unfortunately missed out on as well. Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Sep 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
quote:You should play the new edition of D&D because it's kind of like Dragon Age except this time you can have sex with everything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
quote:All of the references to how 5th is doing it "just like video games" has me REALLY leery. Everything wrong with 4th edition was extremely video game-y, and made the experience much less fun. 4th played very much like an MMO, which was its greatest downfall. Attacks worked like boring macros; classes all felt incredibly same-y (I never really figured out how any class was different from any other, because at the end of the day every class's action was to roll d20 to hit and d8 for damage at early levels, and scaled in exactly the same way); PCs were so powerful compared to the world around them at level 1 that it was impossible to make a quest that's anything but an epic journey to save the world, meaning that a lot of other story-types are right out. Playing 4th edition felt like playing a lame mobile tap-to-attack RPG. Complete with nickel-and-dining DLC, of course, considering buying the PH only got you half of the classes. Holy poo poo, these people are completely brain damaged.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:So I mean, obviously I was being facetious, but this is basically the story of why I stopped playing 4e. I played that character, ended up actually making DPR spreadsheets and stopped when I realised it was literally what I did when I played WoW. Why wouldn't you play something like FATE, Dungeon world or any other powered by apocalypse game if that is the style of play you want.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Shut Up and Sit Down head honcho Quintin Smith decided to write a review of Next, and apparently explain why it's the most important, newbie-friendly, "ergonomic" version of D&D in the last 20 years. The guy really has no history with the franchise, but still trots out tired stuff about 4e having "macros" and being like an MMO (meanwhile he praises Next for being like a video game). "You should play the new edition of D&D because it's kind of like Dragon Age except this time you can have sex with everything." Wow, that is... that something alright.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Lord of Bore posted:Warlocks can't 'speak to anything' at level 1 I'm pretty sure the Cthulu powerup lets them do that telepathically within 30 range of anything that speaks a language. quote:What I'm gleaning from this is that you like being able to Make declarative statements about the game world using magic or magic items. D&D can definitely be that game, but then why have classes that don't get access to magic? Either as an entry level thing for people who don't want anything too complicated and are looking for a simple dungeon crawl. Which is completely valid. Or we just admit fighters are outmoded and don't include them at all. I don't mind either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Littlefinger posted:For me, nothing beats the old "while 4e had whole chapters on improvisation, skill checks and skill challenges to facilitate creative handling of noncombat encounters, 3e had a bunch of spells to invalidate a hapless DM's work, ergo roleplaying not roll-playing Also, "the game being broken is ok because no one ever breaks the game at MY table."
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:So I mean, obviously I was being facetious, but this is basically the story of why I stopped playing 4e. I played that character, ended up actually making DPR spreadsheets and stopped when I realised it was literally what I did when I played WoW. I found it much more limiting that a lot of noon combat stuff was structured. It felt like if there wasn't a spell or SU ability I couldn't do it because they are so heavily structured. I guess if we want to talk about feels as well I've never really care for magic this is literally the most mechanical thing I've ever seen. Give me some leeway to say what it does please. Why can't I describe something awesome with light mechanical backup or have a great idea and for a spell to that instead of pouring over hundreds or boring rear end spell descriptions to find one that fits. I'm still rather annoyed at the 5e Warlock basically becoming more Wizard like. It was much nicer when he was basically just using spell like abilities instead of out right casting as a limited wizard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Shut Up and Sit Down head honcho Quintin Smith decided to write a review of Next, and apparently explain why it's the most important, newbie-friendly, "ergonomic" version of D&D in the last 20 years. The guy really has no history with the franchise, but still trots out tired stuff about 4e having "macros" and being like an MMO (meanwhile he praises Next for being like a video game).
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:Or we just admit fighters are outmoded and don't include them at all. I don't mind either. See, therein lies the problem. Some people want to play fighters that don't suck, so 3.x and 5e don't cater to them. But hey, you don't care, so you can just ignore the problem, thus making those games better than 4e.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Why are 2 orcs an interesting encounter for 4 1st level characters? 2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:I'm pretty sure the Cthulu powerup lets them do that telepathically within 30 range of anything that speaks a language. Ah, I was trying to work it out because their one way telepathy isn't the same as being able to talk to everything. At anything works, I guess 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:See, therein lies the problem. Some people want to play fighters that don't suck, so 3.x and 5e don't cater to them. But hey, you don't care, so you can just ignore the problem, thus making those games better than 4e.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
5e rocks though. It is really the most ergonomic and easy to play game in the DnD franchise. Its great. I've run threw sessions now and everyone had a ton of fun. I thought this would be a thread of people discussing the game, instead it is a thread of everyone whining it isn't exactly like their precious 4e that everybody except this forum hates. You're all a bunch of grognards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Does a Fighter have to have the loving class name 'Fighter' written down. If a different class's mechanics make an effective 'person who fights with the weapon you like' then play that and roleplay the same way as if you wrote Fighter on your sheet. Or go play 4E and quit whining. So Fighter exists as a gotcha? Gotcha!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Does a Fighter have to have the loving class name 'Fighter' written down. If a different class's mechanics make an effective 'person who fights with the weapon you like' then play that and roleplay the same way as if you wrote Fighter on your sheet. Or go play 4E and quit whining. What's Next's not-fighter Fighter class?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
greatn posted:5e rocks though. It is really the most ergonomic and easy to play game in the DnD franchise. Its great. I've run threw sessions now and everyone had a ton of fun. I thought this would be a thread of people discussing the game, instead it is a thread of everyone whining it isn't exactly like their precious 4e that everybody except this forum hates. You're all a bunch of grognards. It's a marginal upgrade to 3e with some massive flaws. Infinite Karma posted:Does a Fighter have to have the loving class name 'Fighter' written down. If a different class's mechanics make an effective 'person who fights with the weapon you like' then play that and roleplay the same way as if you wrote Fighter on your sheet. Or go play 4E and quit whining. Lots of people want to play a strong warrior without magic and be effective. It's a pretty common fantasy archetype.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:53
|
|
