|
MonsterEnvy posted:Make every release a big event and don't overwelm everyone wit too many books. I admit to being genuinely curious at how well this will work out for them. Part of me is excited: like it or not, this is exactly the kind of marketing strategy that can bring more people into the hobby, and pretty much only WotC/D&D have enough muscle to do it. But a larger part of me is concerned. This marketing strategy works best with a game that is designed to appeal broadly. I don't think D&D 5E is that game - per Dahbadu's post, D&D5E is fundamentally what's come before, with some of the obviously terrible stuff cleaned up. It's a game with three decades of in-jokes, baggage, sacred cows, esoteric rules. And it's got an equally long list of things it can't/won't do that have accrued over that time period as it has competed with Pathfinder, suffered the backlash from its fans on 4E, etc. That's a lot of stuff they had to build around, and it meant that the first-time, new-player experience got sacrificed somewhere along the way. And what sucks most of all is that if their marketing strategy doesn't succeed, I worry that the lesson they take away is "Well, we tried it; now we know D&D can't ever really attract a broader base of customers. Back to structuring our product to appeal to the players who're willing to spend $500 over the course of 4 years buying endless supplements." branar fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Oct 13, 2014 |
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:31 |
|
|
Nancy_Noxious posted:So you really dislike defender fighters, is that correct? I really like that fighters have the option to do more than just be the OL for the wizard, personally. Having to trade in their "draw aggro" ability is worth it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:I really like that fighters have the option to do more than just be the OL for the wizard, personally. Having to trade in their "draw aggro" ability is worth it. What options did they get in return? I assume this is a 4e comparison, so I'll also ask what 5e fighter does that 4e fighter doesn't?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:What mechanics let you guard the rest of the party? When the monsters all tried to bypass you and you got an OA on one of them, how did you stop the rest? We used choke points when we could. I was always in front. Our GM also doesn't meta game the monsters; he won't have a NPC attack someone in the back unless the monster is intelligent/aware enough and has a reason. So this may explain why I was able to tank some. I didn't stop all monsters getting to the backline, but I stopped enough of them. The idea is, you should in most fights be able to stick one or two big guys, and at least slow the weenies from getting to the backline. Which seems fair. Casters should AoE (or sleep) weenies ASAP, hopefully killing them in the first couple of rounds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
...so the DM pulled punches and played along with you being the tank.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
The loss of the attack of opportunity is probably the biggest issue I have with 5th edition. I'd be fine with spellcasting not provoking one (as Mage Slayer allows you to do so), or standing up, etc. But moving out of your melee range should always provoke, and it shouldn't cost your reaction. This is likely the first thing I'll be houseruling when our current campaign ends and I run my game. Limiting it by your dexterity of course. Talmonis fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:What options did they get in return? I assume this is a 4e comparison, so I'll also ask what 5e fighter does that 4e fighter doesn't? It isn't my job to read the book to you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
moths posted:...so the DM pulled punches and played along with you being the tank. Kinda, I guess. He's not going to have an animal realize that there's a caster 30 feet away pelting it with freezing rays while I swing a sword in its face. But smart NPCs (mercenaries, other casters, etc.) try to attack backline PCs when they can without putting their life in danger to do so. After all, it's a role-playing game, not a tactical war game -- right? Whatever the case, I definitely think the system gives a protector enough tools to lock down 1 or 2 bad guys continuously during an encounter. Dahbadu fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:It isn't my job to read the book to you. I've read it pretty thoroughly, and my conclusion was that the fighter doesn't get very much that's useful in this ed. I was curious why you thought different. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:Kinda, I guess. He's not going to have an animal realize that there's a caster 30 feet away pelting it with freezing rays while I swing a sword in its face. But smart NPCs (mercenaries, other casters, etc.) try to attack backline PCs when they can without putting their life in danger to do so. After all, it's a role-playing game, not a tactical war game -- right? A lot of the enemies in D&D are intelligent. What will you do about those? Or will those just focus fire the opponent they're least likely to harm as well?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:Whatever the case, I definitely think the system gives a protector enough tools to lock down 1 or 2 bad guys during an encounter. That, plus the fact that the "standard" encounter isn't going to be a number of opponents equal to the number of characters, of a level equal to the characters, means the ability to lock down a couple enemies is a much bigger deal. But that's not going to stop someone from skimming a thread about a summary of preview rules about a game and thinking "gee, if I took this sentence and inserted it into how I think this completely different game is played, it sure sounds like it would suck!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
In 4e the DM could have all the melee monsters ready actions to charge past the fighter on the same turn--the fighters, even--and completely negate defender auras or opp attacks because they were limited to 1/turn and couldn't be taken on your own turn, so it was "playing along" then too. Furthermore, pretending that anecdotal tanking "doesn't count" because it followed from the fiction instead of strictly the mechanics is bullshit. gently caress 4e style tanking anyway, it just inflated everyone's defense which does nothing but slow down every fight. Like when 4e first came out every fight with an enemy Soldier, especially an elite or solo, sucked because of a giant bag of HP with a side of annoying defenses and defense buffs. But every fight with a PC defender had the same problem. I played in a lot of games with players who liked to build no damage healers and defenders and they didn't use the fiction to resolve encounters so every fight took forever, even if the DM had all the monsters draw the opp attacks, and had no tension because half the drat party was based around never "losing." Yet everyone "lost" because the novelty of "they all provoke opp attacks, the ones that try to hit you miss, and the healer's encounter healing is stronger than the enemy's daily and encounter damage wore off real fast.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
It comes back to the core problem where casters can while martials ask. Without mechanics for fighters to protect the party, the fighter's player has to resort to negotiating with the DM to please let him do his job. Meanwhile the wizard can opens his spellbook and tell the DM what happens. Edit: it's been a while, but defense auras, marks, etc don't deactivate when it isn't your turn? If a monster attacks not-you while in your aura, it still pays the price. moths fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Readied action cheese was a problem, it basically came down to a gentleman's agreement for neither side to do it. And I hear you about teams built around survivability over damage output & ending things sooner. 4e is at its best when both sides of the board are built and focused on ending the encounter in 3-4 rounds, otherwise it becomes a slog. Frankly I don't particularly care about the lack of mechanical "tanking" in 5e because the back line can pretty much take care of itself in most cases, it's just stuff like nerfing OAs strikes me as unnecessary and puzzling. moths posted:Edit: it's been a while, but defense auras, marks, etc don't deactivate when it isn't your turn? If a monster attacks not-you while in your aura, it still pays the price. You can't take OAs or immediate actions on your own turn; if they readied something like a Charge for the start of your turn, nothing would happen except for the -2 (unless you're a Paladin). Generic Octopus fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:In 4e the DM could have all the melee monsters ready actions to charge past the fighter on the same turn--the fighters, even--and completely negate defender auras or opp attacks because they were limited to 1/turn and couldn't be taken on your own turn, so it was "playing along" then too. Readied action cheese is something to be avoided, agreed, but when you consider that readied action cheese is the *default position* in 5e... can you see why it seems to be a problem. As regards the whole last paragraph: did you play after the release of MM3? the newer monsters REALLY reduced slogginess, by hitting harder and dying quicker. And yeah, playing with people who actively build to make things sloggy, will make things sloggy. Same is true of any edition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Gort posted:A lot of the enemies in D&D are intelligent. What will you do about those? Or will those just focus fire the opponent they're least likely to harm as well? Being able to lock down 1-2 guys continuously while (in most cases) also slowing some weenies from killing the backline, seems to be enough honestly. Remember, your casters should pick tools to AoE clear or disable as well. They shouldn't be helpless completely relying on the single proctor to defend all of them. Also note that I'm not saying DnD 5e is perfect. I'm just saying it's an improvement over other 3e-like systems (e.g. Pathfinder). The fact that it still embraces some regressive design means that it'll appeal to the masses that play Pathfinder, which hopefully means it'll have staying power that 4e (although arguably superior with more progressive design) didn't. If you and your friends don't like 5e after trying it, don't play it!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:Kinda, I guess. He's not going to have an animal realize that there's a caster 30 feet away pelting it with freezing rays while I swing a sword in its face. But smart NPCs (mercenaries, other casters, etc.) try to attack backline PCs when they can without putting their life in danger to do so. After all, it's a role-playing game, not a tactical war game -- right? The combat part of the rules is definitely made to be played like a war game, but that's been true for every version of D&D. There are no concessions to roleplaying in it at all, or in-character behavior from either the PCs or the GM.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:That, plus the fact that the "standard" encounter isn't going to be a number of opponents equal to the number of characters, of a level equal to the characters, means the ability to lock down a couple enemies is a much bigger deal. Dahbadu said that it's Pathfinder minus a bunch of poo poo rules / mechanics, followed by liking the way Attacks of Opportunity are handled in Next. This is obviously going to be challenged because you can't make more than one Opportunity Attack per turn in Next, compared to being able to make as many as your DEX modifier will support with Combat Reflexes under Pathfinder/3.x, and more informed posters than I can speak to the options available to a Fighter in 4E Is the context different? Well yeah, sure it is - a Fighter didn't need to play mother-may-I with the DM in older versions of D&D because they were almost always fighting in 10 foot corridors and the monsters literally couldn't move through anyway. In 4E, the DM could try to go for the guys in the back, but the Fighter had more than enough abilities that the DM might not want to even if he absolutely could and didn't want to pull punches. And then you get to Next and ... one opportunity attack per round. And no, this doesn't invalidate Dahdabu or anyone else having fun and enjoying themselves, because that poo poo is subjective, but if you make a statement that can be argued and can examined, such as the ability of a Fighter to force the DM to attack him, of course it's going to be discussed, because that's what the thread is for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:As regards the whole last paragraph: did you play after the release of MM3? the newer monsters REALLY reduced slogginess, by hitting harder and dying quicker. And yeah, playing with people who actively build to make things sloggy, will make things sloggy. Same is true of any edition. I love that the sketchy encounter-building guidelines from the Basic DM's rules is "broken out of the box" and yet you can't fairly judge 4th unless you have extensive experience playing the game after the third monster book. Also, the second DM's book and the mid-edition rules overhaul if you don't like boring skill challenges or needlessly complex classes. Christ, none of this poo poo was ever perfect. polisurgist fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:Christ, none of this poo poo was ever perfect. Welcome to D&D!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Frankly I don't particularly care about the lack of mechanical "tanking" in 5e because the back line can pretty much take care of itself in most cases, it's just stuff like nerfing OAs strikes me as unnecessary and puzzling. This is pretty much why I don't care about a lack of defendering on the fighter's (or anyone's) part. The rear lines aren't nearly as fragile as they were in...any previous edition, and running past the fighter is a good way to guarantee he can move back and carve you up with action surges, extra attacks and whatnot. Or, if the fighter wants to really defend, he can stay next to the squishier members and use his shield. As for OA nerfing, it's part of a larger move toward making each turn shorter, which contributed to long fights in 4th edition and long, lovely fights in 3rd. When every move requires every player (and the DM) to potentially decide whether to react, things drag. Same deal with the "bonus action" in place of minor actions, though I do think they included a sufficient number of bonus actions to defeat the time-saving purpose there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:I love that the sketchy encounter-building guidelines from the Basic DM's rules is "broken out of the box" and yet you can't fairly judge 4th unless you have extensive experience playing the game after the third monster book. Also, the second DM's book and the mid-edition rules overhaul if you don't like boring skill challenges or needlessly complex classes. 4e also had big problems out of the box. No one is saying that game was perfect. It's just that we want 5E to have learned from 4E's mistakes and successes, not have to re-fix a bunch of the same loving problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:I love that the sketchy encounter-building guidelines from the Basic DM's rules is "broken out of the box" and yet you can't fairly judge 4th unless you have extensive experience playing the game after the third monster book. Also, the second DM's book and the mid-edition rules overhaul if you don't like boring skill challenges or needlessly complex classes. I think what they're trying to get at is it would've been nice if they built on what had been successful from previous editions, so that issues that had already been solved wouldn't have to be solved again halfway through the new system's life time, if at all. Or, to put it another way, why would I want to play a brand new system with all of its warts and flaws now when I can play a previous system that already had its quality of life improvements, many of which seem to have solved said warts and flaws of this new edition? Does that make sense? Like, yes, none of this poo poo was ever perfect on the outset. We're totally willing to accept that. But why repeat mistakes that have already been corrected? Full disclosure, my group has moved from 4e to 5e and it doesn't seem like anyone in my party or my DM is looking back. That disappoints me as a player admittedly, but I enjoy hanging out with my friends and bullshitting for a few hours once a week so I'll play. Mecha Gojira fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Cerepol posted:Welcome to D&D! Basically. I can already see where 5th edition is going to annoy me as a DM; oddly enough, it's not any of the common gripes I hear about it. Just like the things that annoyed me about 4th edition weren't that it was Pokeman WoW for gamer-babys or any of the dumb poo poo that deadenders were pouting about then. In both cases, the good outweighed the bad overall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Y'know, it would have been the easiest thing in the world for someone on the Next team to go "okay, what if we cut OAs down to 1/round for everybody but the Fighter and gave them, the peerless masters of fighting, OAs 1/turn like usual." That would have been 1). very simple to implement, 2). still cut down on the overall number of OAs and the dread specter of long turns, and 3). given the Fighter another unique thing to claim as its own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:I love that the sketchy encounter-building guidelines from the Basic DM's rules is "broken out of the box" and yet you can't fairly judge 4th unless you have extensive experience playing the game after the third monster book. Also, the second DM's book and the mid-edition rules overhaul if you don't like boring skill challenges or needlessly complex classes. Look at you making this stuff up, hah. 4e fans are genuinely some of it's biggest critics, especially around here. The initial release was a combat slog for sure, but at least the basic mechanics allowed the classes to do what they were supposed to do without having to ask for permission.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Readied action cheese is something to be avoided, agreed, but when you consider that readied action cheese is the *default position* in 5e... can you see why it seems to be a problem. The "default position" is better now because infinite opp attacks was overpowered and Murphy's rule tier bullshit. An army of one PC Defender or enemy Soldier would bottleneck a fight and reenact 300 all by themselves unless a cheesier or meaner mechanic negated them. If anything, the positive reception of the MM3's "streamlining" shows that on a continuum of Rocket Tag vs Tank and Spank sliding toward the former is better. It's not hard to understand why: it's less predetermined, so and every choice feels like it matters more. That's just speaking to the numbers being fixed though. It's true of mechanics too because players will think outside the box more when more is at stake and not completely determined by their or someone else's character sheet. The combination of both improvisation and mechanics is better than one or the other, so pruning mechanics, as engaging as they were to the player that benefited from them because of how overpowered they were, is good for the game. I seriously don't get why tanking doesn't "get you there" if someone had to converse with the DM and engage the fiction even a little bit to accomplish it. It's like "not one drop." What I know as playing the game is called out as "asking for permission" around here like it's the worst poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
quote:I seriously don't get why tanking doesn't "get you there" if someone had to converse with the DM and engage the fiction even a little bit to accomplish it. It's like "not one drop." What I know as playing the game is called out as "asking for permission" around here like it's the worst poo poo. The issue is that any point in time, the GM can decide that the fighter doesn't get to interact with the fiction for any number of reasons, and then the fighter has no way to enforce his role in the party with the rules of the class. And no, he doesn't have to be an rear end in a top hat or lovely GM for that to be the case, either. If narrative was a more significant part of the rules, the fighter would be able to declare what he was doing and the GM would have to deal with it, not the other way around. If the If the map-based mechanics were more solid, the fighter would be able to make tactical decisions that the GM would have to deal with, not the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Look at you making this stuff up, hah. 4e fans are genuinely some of it's biggest critics, especially around here. The initial release was a combat slog for sure, but at least the basic mechanics allowed the classes to do what they were supposed to do without having to ask for permission. Honestly I hated arbitrary mechanics that force things to pay attention to you instead of the logical target. I didn't like it in the feats from 3.5/pathfinder, and it got even worse in 4th. There is no "ask for permission", it's simply you do it or you fail to do it, depending on your actions. Magic gets around this (sometimes, there's plenty of failure), because it is literally magic. S.J. posted:The issue is that any point in time, the GM can decide that the fighter doesn't get to interact with the fiction for any number of reasons, and then the fighter has no way to enforce his role in the party with the rules of the class. If narrative was a more significant part of the rules, the fighter would be able to declare what he was doing and the GM would have to deal with it, not the other way around. I really don't get this whole Anti-GM stance. Did you have a slew of really terrible and adversarial GM's or something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:What I know as playing the game is called out as "asking for permission" around here like it's the worst poo poo. Why aren't spells handled the same way? It would make for a leaner and less expensive rulebook.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:Basically. I found, running it at low levels, that given how combats are really short and people are playing rocket tag, surprise rounds are super, super powerful. If your PCs get surprise, you might as well hand them an ”I win" button. EDIT: How do you balance rewarding a clever plan, and taking 30 minutes to roll out a dull, foregone conclusion? ascendance fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Honestly I hated arbitrary mechanics that force things to pay attention to you instead of the logical target. I didn't like it in the feats from 3.5/pathfinder, and it got even worse in 4th. There is no "ask for permission", it's simply you do it or you fail to do it, depending on your actions. Magic gets around this (sometimes, there's plenty of failure), because it is literally magic. There's nothing arbitrary about the tanking mechanics in 4e, if that's what you mean. If anything, it reinforces the narrative of the game - there is a dude with a sword who will beat your rear end to death if you ignore him. Do you ignore him? Y/N And what do you mean anti-GM? There's nothing anti-GM about what I said. The GM also gets to do all of the things that PCs get to do, and more by virtue of having access to the entire game world's resources rather than just a particular character. You're not taking away the GM's ability to do things by giving players the ability to have concrete options that don't rely being able to, out of character, convince the GM of things. S.J. fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:Does that make sense? Like, yes, none of this poo poo was ever perfect on the outset. We're totally willing to accept that. But why repeat mistakes that have already been corrected? Combine them together and you have fights that involve, on average, fewer enemies, that, should there be enough (>1) of them to overrun the defenders' OAs, are hitting spellcasters and snipers who can hit back, as well as lining themselves up for a serious nova from the fighter right afterward.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:Well, first off, the loudest complainers about 5th edition totally are not willing to accept that Like who, exactly? Maybe you should go to the 4e thread and ask people if 4e was broken when it first came out, and why, and also what continues to be broken about 4e
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
In my experience playing Pathfinder attacks of opportunity were usually used offensively in some stupid combo. If they were used "normally" they never impacted the game to a significant degree and in cases where they actually impacted the game they were essentially abused. I also felt the mechanics surrounding them were convoluted and in general directed the action away from the tabletop and more towards the books for rules lawyering. Having attacks of opportunity only trigger when someone moves out of your reach and limiting them to one seems an elegant solution, as long as they still give you the tools to stick a couple of bad guys, which they do. And in 5e, just by picking one feat you can super boost their power making them something to fear (without being broken). I'll take that over some stupid combination of enlarge person, oversized/reach weapons, and some effect pushing a monster back and forth through a couple of squares and hitting it 5 times in one round. Hence my statement complimenting the new design of attacks of opportunity. But as another poster pointed out, this is all subjective. To each his own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Look at you making this stuff up, hah. 4e fans are genuinely some of it's biggest critics, especially around here. The initial release was a combat slog for sure, but at least the basic mechanics allowed the classes to do what they were supposed to do without having to ask for permission. I don't know anything about how the game was regarded around here when it came out (see: avatar). I do know that right now, the complaining I see about the encounter-building rules, which are only published in the Basic preview and even in a document of preview rules are specifically called out as being a work in progress is a major thing by what appear to be hardcore 4th edition players who turn right around and tell you that you need to have played 4th edition after the third monster book and then you have to have gone back and changed the number on everything previously published before you can acknowledge that it was anything other than a Swiss loving Sundial.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Like who, exactly? Maybe you should go to the 4e thread and ask people if 4e was broken when it first came out, and why, and also what continues to be broken about 4e You mean this isn't the 4th edition thread?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:I also felt the mechanics surrounding them were convoluted and in general directed the action away from the tabletop and more towards the books for rules lawyering. Spells don't have this problem because
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
ascendance posted:what do you think is actually going to be problematic about running D&D Next? Multiattack. On. Every. loving. Thing is my big one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:31 |
|
|
Nancy_Noxious posted:Spells don't have this problem because
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:35
|
|