|
But the many pages of this thread where people deconstruct the game to figure out how it works, where it doesn't, and how it could be fixed are sure signs of a group of toxic negative-minded haters who aren't interested in playing and only want to talk about how bad it is.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:19 |
|
|
ascendance posted:Its only an excuse because you think my reason is invalid. You do realize you're being disingenuous, right? People pointing out things like the CR system being useless as an estimate for encounter difficulty, martial vs caster balance, bad spell/bestiary list formatting and mechanics like 1-hour short rests and the Wild Surge table are no less valid criticisms for "I don't like this game for these reasons" than you going "ACKS still uses the saving throw mechanic from original versions of D&D" How would you feel if someone came into the retroclone thread defending ACKS by saying they had fun with it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Bottom line: A bad product gets bad press. If you don't like it, tough, deal. We, as customers and testers, get to poo poo on it as much you get to defend it, and probably even more justifiably. Should I go ahead and tell you about how I knew Next was going to be bad from the moment they tried to spin axing the Warlord as a positive thing? That's when I decided the team wasn't getting my money, even though I went ahead and played the game just to be sure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Nobody's even really defending it. We get posts about how 5e lets you roll dice and play a character, so we shouldn't poo poo on it. I just wonder why, is all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Like, people don't hate that you like the game. I like plenty of bad or flawed games. 4e has a lot of flaws. Shadowrun is mechanically bad. I don't disagree with people, say, asserting that the encounter building system is broken. Thats a fair claim to make. I dont necessarily agree with the assertions that not having tanking abilities makes a fighter mechanically broken, but again, if thats what your style of play demands, thats a reasonable complaint to make. I disagree with being called an idiot for liking 5e, and being constantly confronted with, "why dont you just play a better game?" I dont agree with fans of 5e being harrassed and talked down to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
ascendance posted:This is totally not true. You are projecting. I wasn't aware we were calling people who like Next idiots? Could you point out specifically where that happened? I've really enjoyed my Next games so far, even with the problems with some rules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:You do realize you're being disingenuous, right? People pointing out things like the CR system being useless as an estimate for encounter difficulty, martial vs caster balance, bad spell/bestiary list formatting and mechanics like 1-hour short rests and the Wild Surge table are no less valid criticisms for "I don't like this game for these reasons" than you going "ACKS still uses the saving throw mechanic from original versions of D&D" Is it so loving wrong to want a thread discussing a game to be for fans of a game?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:Do any of them start wringing their hands about the MORASS OF NEGATIVITY if anybody agrees with them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
goldjas posted:At the end of the day I think most people just want the new edition of the gateway / big dog game of the hobby to not be...whatever 5E is, whether you actually like it or not. (My huge personal beef with it as being primarily a DM is the Monster Design, I can live with the rest of it's flaws but that one just really gets to me).
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
moths posted:Is Next even getting any vitriol? It's aggressively mediocre, and bad in a lot of places. But aside from two shitstains in the credits, there's really nothing between the covers worth getting mad at.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
If you can find something interesting to say positively about 5e, just post. That's the point a lot of people are making; there's just not that much interesting to discuss about the game if you're going to forbid all negativity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:First comparing it to RIFTS, then the Maple Leafs. Next's biggest proponents in this thread are doing a better job of selling people off of it then the people bagging on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
So how much extra damage should Fighters be doing with each attack?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
ascendance posted:So how much extra damage should Fighters be doing with each attack? That's an extremely difficult question to approach because without some sort of standardized approach to monster building, which there isn't, there's no way to know whether or not any given solution to the fighters damage problem will be appropriate or simply invalidate a host of monsters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
ascendance posted:Excellence is less important than a lot of people seem to think it should be. New NEXT tagline spotted. Also new thread title. Also, you just summed up the mentality of Next fans: "Why settle for more when less will do?".
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
S.J. posted:That's an extremely difficult question to approach because without some sort of standardized approach to monster building, which there isn't, there's no way to know whether or not any given solution to the fighters damage problem will be appropriate or simply invalidate a host of monsters. Basically, its just a matter of tinkering at this point so fighter DPR that isnt dual wielding hand crossbows is as good as dual wielding hand crossbows.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
ascendance posted:Excellence is less important than a lot of people seem to think it should be. You may argue that this is unfortunate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:Important to who?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
gently caress you ascendance for saying something bad about the Toronto Maple Leafs. You have lovely taste in hockey, too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
ascendance posted:Its pretty clearly established that encounter building is broken, so we are going to have to wing it with monsters anyway. Is dual crossbows actually good DPR though, or is it just the best the class can do?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Is dual crossbows actually good DPR though, or is it just the best the class can do? I thought dual handbows was just the cool way, but the ideal method was 1 handbow + shield for the extra AC?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
ascendance posted:Important to marketing a successful, popular product.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Arivia posted:gently caress you ascendance for saying something bad about the Toronto Maple Leafs. You have lovely taste in hockey, too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
ascendance posted:So how much extra damage should Fighters be doing with each attack? There's no correct answer to this question in the context of 5th Edition because the answer would be based around the types/lengths of fights that the party is going to get into. Since we can't rely on the encounter building guidelines to tell us what a 'reasonable' fight is there's no way to give you an answer. That's totally ignoring the fact that you start getting extra attacks that deal the same amount of damage later on or that you get access to action surge to double the attacks you get to make in a round. The entire system is flawed and causes them to scale awkwardly as they gain levels/gear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:I thought dual handbows was just the cool way, but the ideal method was 1 handbow + shield for the extra AC? I'm guessing the idea is to get one extra attack with the Sharpshooter feat applied.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
TenaciousJ posted:I'm guessing the idea is to get one extra attack with the Sharpshooter feat applied. Right, but from what I remember it didn't necessitate a 2nd handbow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Right, but from what I remember it didn't necessitate a 2nd handbow. You don't get the extra attack from two weapon fighting without actually having a 2nd weapon though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
TenaciousJ posted:I'm guessing the idea is to get one extra attack with the Sharpshooter feat applied. That, and the Crossbow Expert feat for the bonus action attack (take that at level 1). And a shield, and the +2 to ranged weapon accuracy boost.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
TenaciousJ posted:You don't get the extra attack from two weapon fighting without actually having a 2nd weapon though. You don't need to be TWF; Crossbow Expert gives you an extra attack as a bonus action.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
TenaciousJ posted:You don't get the extra attack from two weapon fighting without actually having a 2nd weapon though. You're not getting the second attack from two-weapon fighting, you're getting it from Crossbow Expert. Two-weapon fighting specifies melee attacks, and you need Crossbow Expert to get extra attacks anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
RPZip posted:You're not getting the second attack from two-weapon fighting, you're getting it from Crossbow Expert. Two-weapon fighting specifies melee attacks, and you need Crossbow Expert to get extra attacks anyway. Generic Octopus posted:You don't need to be TWF; Crossbow Expert gives you an extra attack as a bonus action. I missed that. I'm a DM and I mostly play casters so I didn't look that hard. Good to know!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:You don't need to be TWF; Crossbow Expert gives you an extra attack as a bonus action.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
ascendance posted:So why do people use 2 crossbows again? Oh wait, doesnt the extra attack have to come from a crossbow in your offhand? Not according to the feat. Psure people just use 2 because it looks & sounds cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Not according to the feat. Psure people just use 2 because it looks & sounds cool. It does. Howver I will check if its true.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Arivia posted:gently caress you ascendance for saying something bad about the Toronto Maple Leafs. You have lovely taste in hockey, too. Well, the Leafs are pretty bad. Now let me tell you about the Flames! Stanley Cup potenti-  Nexttalk: Gonna reboot the PF game I was running with the neice and nephew soon. Niece really liked the art (aside from the halflings).
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
ascendance posted:So why do people use 2 crossbows again? Oh wait, doesnt the extra attack have to come from a crossbow in your offhand? MonsterEnvy posted:It does. Howver I will check if its true.  Dammit Monster, I thought we learned to check the book before posting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
I'm lazy and incompetent, what's a good one-stop summary of what's wrong with 5e?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
Cerepol posted:
The "it does" was talking about the "Psure people just use 2 because it looks & sounds cool." part. Then I said I was going to check if you need two for it to work. You did the work for me here however.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Oligopsony posted:I'm lazy and incompetent, what's a good one-stop summary of what's wrong with 5e? Four necromancers summoning skeletons on the edge of a cliff...
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:19 |
|
|
Oligopsony posted:I'm lazy and incompetent, what's a good one-stop summary of what's wrong with 5e? Mike Mearls got drunk over the weekend and forgot to do his term paper, so he adjusted one he did a a while back and submitted that instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 05:57
|
|
