|
polisurgist posted:I really don't think 4th edition has to play this way, but this is the impression one gets of how the game must play from people who feel compelled to squat in conversations about unrelated games to complain that those unrelated games aren't 4th edition. Hmm yes, 5th Edition D&D and 4th Edition D&D have literally nothing in common. Entirely unrelated, one might say.
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
Power Player posted:What do you think you'll be dipping into after Fighter? And how many levels deep would you go into Fighter? 3, 4, or 5? For a cool martial dude? Probably just 2 or 3 honestly, then Monk all the way (but probably start with Monk til level 5 to get their horrid level 1 out of the way sooner and pick up Stunning Strikes). Some neat synergy with Open Hand; could use his Quivering Palm, pop Action Surge and trigger the save-or-die immediately (and even on save it's still 10d10 extra damage) for some nice burst. I think I like the monk's level 18 stuff more than battlemaster maneuvers so I'd probs go Monk 5 -> Fighter 2 -> Monk til 20, but if the game doesn't go that far then yeah totes grab some Battlemaster stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:For a cool martial dude? Probably just 2 or 3 honestly, then Monk all the way (but probably start with Monk til level 5 to get their horrid level 1 out of the way sooner and pick up Stunning Strikes). Some neat synergy with Open Hand; could use his Quivering Palm, pop Action Surge and trigger the save-or-die immediately (and even on save it's still 10d10 extra damage) for some nice burst. I think I like the monk's level 18 stuff more than battlemaster maneuvers so I'd probs go Monk 5 -> Fighter 2 -> Monk til 20, but if the game doesn't go that far then yeah totes grab some Battlemaster stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:I wasn't necessarily getting salty at you in particular, I just hear all these stories about "he rolled a one and tripped on a banana peel" and it sounds awful. If you want to play the three stooges cool, but no hero is a comic sop 5% of the time. All it will make people do is play incredibly safe so the character they want to enjoy isn't the butt of a joke. Scaled success is a really good idea though. Consider ditching the d20 and use 3d6. The average is the same, but you are less likely to get the low and high end and more likely to have results around the middle. Then I could see extra penalties for rolling a 3 because it is going to be very rare. Same with all 6's, it will call for something really cool to happen. I could have sworn I saw a retroclone that worked with all d6's once. Maybe I'll root around for that for ideas. Thanks for the good post. polisurgist posted:I really don't think 4th edition has to play this way, but this is the impression one gets of how the game must play from people who feel compelled to squat in conversations about unrelated games to complain that those unrelated games aren't 4th edition. The encounter buildings guidelines being hosed, swingy math/disproportionately deadly monsters, mundane vs casters being imbalanced, the game having 3-4 saving throws too many (and not well supported by proficiency), short rests being unrealistic and/or mechanically screwy, some classes still having to go through "I attack, end turn" cycles are all issues that don't require the game be turned back into 4E to be solved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:everyone wants...4E...it...be a better game than the previous editions...4E is a good I see right through you, you don't fool me
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:I don't understand how you still think everyone wants 5E to be 4E when people have told you repeatedly and often that they want it to be a better game than the previous editions, not that they want 4E again. 4E is a good point of comparison because it got a lot of things right (and also a lot of things wrong). I certainly do believe that this is what people are saying. And if they make a single point that doesn't boil down to THE MATH as described above or other "problems" that aren't built on dumb assumptions about 4th edition, or give even the slightest indication that they ever looked into the game for a purpose other than spraying poo poo on it, I'll even believe them when they say it. But if in 500 posts, someone has literally nothing even neutral to say about a game, I'm going to give their input the same level of respect I gave to the people complaining that 4th edition was TOTALLY A MMO when it came out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Unfortunately, market leaders are always conservative. Its the little guys that can take risks with innovation. But seriously, the majority did not like 4e, which is why Pathfinder supplanted it, and they had to put out 5e. You can hate on grogs all you want, but nothing is going to change the market. Not magically, not immediately. Most people did want an improved 3e, not what they got with 4e.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
ascendance posted:But seriously, the majority did not like 4e, which is why Pathfinder supplanted it, and they had to put out 5e. Except we can't be sure that's actually true. We don't have any real numbers, except for the massive number (...for a tabletop game) of subs to DDI. 4E sold just as well (or poorly, depending on your standards) as any other version of D&D. Even with Pathfinder as a direct competitor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
ascendance posted:But seriously, the majority did not like 4e Loudness is not mass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
4e is like the silent movie classic Intolerance. It made a lot of money but everyone thought it was a flop because it didn't do as well as Griffith's last movie (the racist milestone Birth of a Nation) so that misinformation was repeated for decades because old timey box office records were hard to track.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Power Player posted:I really want battlemaster stuff so I'm going at least 3, although the monk stuff does make some of that stuff redundant. Maybe go Bard instead? Like, bard multiclass, or bard instead of fighter? I guess it doesn't matter really, in either case Bards are wicked strong and getting in on spell action is always cool. Also, it's not that great since it only gives 1 die, but Martial Adept gives you 2 maneuvers for a feat instead of leveling through Fighter if you want the level space for something else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:I certainly do believe that this is what people are saying. And if they make a single point that doesn't boil down to THE MATH as described above or other "problems" that aren't built on dumb assumptions about 4th edition, or give even the slightest indication that they ever looked into the game for a purpose other than spraying poo poo on it, I'll even believe them when they say it. I'm assuming you haven't been following this thread much, but we've talked about math as compared to other systems as well. Like a week ago we talked about how poo poo 3.X's CR system is, citing a post of the ever-menacing CR3 death-crab. We talked about how 2E's HD-based system was basically also bad. We talked about how multiclassing was poo poo in 3E, how feats are a huge problem throughout all the systems, how skills are poo poo and 4E didn't improved on them. We talked about how 5e has some good qualities, like fast combat (albeit at low levels, and due to a dearth of real choices in battle), the addition of the ad/disadvantage mechanics, which notably smooth out 4E and 3E's giants stacks of tiny bonuses, and how concentration is a good mechanic. The reason (I'll say this again) why people are comparing the math to 4E's is that 4E's combat math loving worked. 3E's didn't. 2E's sorta didn't. What is so hard to understand about comparing new, bad system mechanics to old ones that did work, not really old ones that also didn't work? Edit: removed snark.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:I'm assuming you haven't been following this thread much, but we've talked about math as compared to other systems as well. Like a week ago we talked about how poo poo 3.X's CR system is, citing a post of the ever-menacing CR3 death-crab. We talked about how 2E's HD-based system was basically also bad. We talked about how multiclassing was poo poo in 3E, how feats are a huge problem throughout all the systems, how skills are poo poo and 4E didn't improved on them. We talked about how 5e has some good qualities, like fast combat (albeit at low levels, and due to a dearth of real choices in battle), the addition of the ad/disadvantage mechanics, which notably smooth out 4E and 3E's giants stacks of tiny bonuses, and how concentration is a good mechanic. I mean, if what I said doesn't describe you, then it isn't about you. But it is about some people here for drat sure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
4e does not have a patent on math. People who think the CR system should be not broken or that Fighters shouldn't be head and shoulders less effective at their job (or indeed, have a job at all) than similar classes aren't asking for 4e, they're just asking for a better game. Like seriously - even if all you want is a better 3.x, you really need to demand more from 3.x than what you had in the early 'aughts. At the very least they could have built a CR system that actually did its job, which this one doesn't - the easiest way to use CR in 5e is to ignore that it exists and eyeball the monsters manually, which is precisely what all of us did in 3.x too. That's not an improvement, even over the very same game that 'the majority' supposedly loves. Criticism of 5e is not purely the result of 4e fans lashing out at 5e. Even if it were, one needs to take the criticism of 5e at face value and deal with that intrinsically. "You like 4e and this criticism is born out of a desire to never have to change editions because truly you are the grog" is a fine sounding drive-by shitpost but it's basically a dolled up ad hominem attack. This is of course keeping in mind that 4e 'fans' have largely themselves moved to greener pastures in recent years, with 13th Age, Dungeon World, and others attracting a good portion of the base. For example, I could envision a world where Fighters are just damage machines (and that's almost what we have), where they can self-heal and where they get declarative abilities on par with the Wizard without reverting the whole thing to 4e. Wanting some kind of focused direction and mechanical commitment from 5e isn't asking for much. polisurgist posted:I mean, if what I said doesn't describe you, then it isn't about you. But it is about some people here for drat sure. Okay, so 'some people' are just lashing out at 5e (and you) because they are stubborn 4e apologists who, like some kind of specter, cannot move on due to unfinished business. Even if that were true - that doesn't make the comments wrong. I mean I get it. If you like 5e, this place is a giant pit of negativity and even I think it's excessive (I've said so several times) but you have to admit where your game is flawed. What's frustrating about 5e is that there are so many little flaws that, were I to run the game, I can already feel my house rule binder growing beyond bonds of its poor three-ring form. Mendrian fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:I mean, if what I said doesn't describe you, then it isn't about you. But it is about some people here for drat sure. Can you point to even one?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Can you point to even one? http://forums.somethingawful.com/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=38274
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Like, bard multiclass, or bard instead of fighter? I guess it doesn't matter really, in either case Bards are wicked strong and getting in on spell action is always cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Can you point to even one?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
I don't even really like 4th edition. Hell, I probably have more fun playing this edition rather than 4th because I don't enjoy crunchy combat or combat focused games in general. That doesn't mean that the system is well designed or that I think this edition is better than the 4th. Andrast fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Okay, now find even a single quote of mine that can be construed as even vaguely hinting at a desire for the stupid thing you made up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:For example, I could envision a world where Fighters are just damage machines (and that's almost what we have), where they can self-heal and where they get declarative abilities on par with the Wizard without reverting the whole thing to 4e. Wanting some kind of focused direction and mechanical commitment from 5e isn't asking for much. To chime in on this, I'm currently playing a Tomes game (D&D as rewritten by Terrible rear end in a top hat Frank Trollman), as a Soldier, one of the alternate base classes that is basically a riff on ToB. In a party of 3 where one is a monster tamer that leverages every monster book to fight through minions, a guardian angel who handles utility through spammable divinations, teleportations and heals and myself, my Soldier is in charge of utterly shitkicking combat encounters...and in fact, he does just that. He actively has counters to normally unbeatable stratagems like contingencied teleports, save or dies, mass minion spam, illusions, enemies immune to HP damage and more besides, and has strange abilities like the power to become invisible at-will, fly, cut through anything (buildings and magic materials included), ignore the effects of any planes of existence (including, for example, the Mindrape Atmosphere of the planes of ultimate good and evil), perceive any traces of magic, reflect spells back without spending a single action and I think I'm forgetting a few more things. He isn't a defender, he just goes and obliterates enemies in an orgy of blades and violence. If Frank loving Trollman can get building an asskicking martial character right, it speaks really god drat poorly of Mearls and company that their fighters suck so bad. I've been reading the thread on the side, and some of the poo poo 5e apologists have said is just really baffling to me. Like, take this post: Slydingdoor posted:If any player makes a declaration that the rest just ignore they absolutely are being lovely assholes unless there's a cut and dry rule saying the declaration isn't enough, in which case the declarer has to elaborate and converse until a ruling is made usually with the aid of dice. That's the game. What the gently caress is wrong with you? No, seriously, how is your brain so broken that you think telling a player 'you are nothing but a speedbump in the way of the valuable people, make something up' is a good thing for the game to say to a player? Why do you think your conception of D&D, which seems to be a party that is a mix of worthless jock shitfarmers and unstoppable god-nerds, is more valuable than mine, where my fighting man just got done slaying a returning god in a single stroke and is currently working out through an (official, published) adventure to strip the ability to teleport from every fiend in the Lower Planes? Why should the game ever, EVER imply that I should feel worthless and powerless, instead of being the asskicking badass I signed up to play? Your version of D&D frankly loving sucks, and I want no part of it. Players and the entire RPG market deserve better from the flagship RPG, thank you very much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
I guess that is kind of clever since it seems to just take whoever clicked on it to their own member info. Not that it really answers the question. Of course polisurgist linking to Ferrinus's member info didn't really answer the question either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Power Player posted:Bard multiclass, with 3 Fighter/everything else Bard (of Valor, probably). Yeah, I kinda want the four dice from level 3 rather then the feat's one. Would that be too much weaker then just a level 20 Bard? Not really, you lose out on learning 2 spells and 3 spell slots (one each of 5, 6, and 7). So yeah, you'd probably be better off with 3 more bard levels to fuel more higher-end spells, but eh, wouldn't worry about honestly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Okay, now find even a single quote of mine that can be construed as even vaguely hinting at a desire for the stupid thing you made up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Okay, so 'some people' are just lashing out at 5e (and you) because they are stubborn 4e apologists who, like some kind of specter, cannot move on due to unfinished business. Even if that were true - that doesn't make the comments wrong. I mean I get it. If you like 5e, this place is a giant pit of negativity and even I think it's excessive (I've said so several times) but you have to admit where your game is flawed. What's frustrating about 5e is that there are so many little flaws that, were I to run the game, I can already feel my house rule binder growing beyond bonds of its poor three-ring form. Sure, it's a game with flaws. What would be really awesome would be to be able to have a conversation about those flaws and good way to work around or with them with people who are actually interested in that conversation and who might actually benefit from it without being swept under an avalanche of "instead of playing a game with problems like a moron, why don't you play this thing, or maybe you don't know what math is?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:Gee, that sounds like it would be a fun game! I like how you craftily evade providing evidence for your claims while ignoring others' evidence for their own. What a cool guy!  Has anyone figured out any general rules for making monsters that might at least bring their AC/Saves/basic attacks into a reasonable line? Based on some of the graphs posted here it seems like it's shouldn't be too hard to normalize. I'd love to see something like this, from 13th age: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:Gee, that sounds like it would be a fun game! These discussions used to be a fun game, but nowadays people like you just lose instantly. There's no challenge in it anymore. You don't even bother to pretend to not be full of poo poo for, like, two posts in a row.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
I've never said I want 5e to be like 4e. I've never even implied it. In fact, I've barely ever played it - I played one campaign as a minotaur warden and a oneshot with a gnome swordmage, and both of them were years ago. My knowledge of the system is spotty at best and I've asked a handful of times for someone else to clarify something about it. If I bring up an edition to compare 5e to, it's usually 3.5 or its derivatives, because most of my experience is with 3.5.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:I mean, if what I said doesn't describe you, then it isn't about you. But it is about some people here for drat sure. Actually what you're saying doesn't describe anyone in this thread at all. Also, could you please respond to the various people asking for specific examples of the stupid poo poo you're babbling about? That would be great. polisurgist posted:Sure, it's a game with flaws. What would be really awesome would be to be able to have a conversation about those flaws and good way to work around or with them with people who are actually interested in that conversation and who might actually benefit from it without being swept under an avalanche of "instead of playing a game with problems like a moron, why don't you play this thing, or maybe you don't know what math is?" That was actually happening before you showed up. Now your bullshit is even drowning that out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Okay, now find even a single quote of mine that can be construed as even vaguely hinting at a desire for the stupid thing you made up. Stop asking for dumb, boring stuff. This thread is filled with swan-songs for 4e and anybody that says otherwise is being pedantic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:I've never said I want 5e to be like 4e. I've never even implied it. In fact, I've barely ever played it - I played one campaign as a minotaur warden and a oneshot with a gnome swordmage, and both of them were years ago. My knowledge of the system is spotty at best and I've asked a handful of times for someone else to clarify something about it. Aaaaahhhh somebody got caught! (the links always sends you to your own profile 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:Stop asking for dumb, boring stuff. This thread is filled with swan-songs for 4e and anybody that says otherwise is being pedantic. I can't help but ask for boring, dumb stuff if there's a dispute over the contents of my post history.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
polisurgist posted:"instead of playing a game with problems like a moron, why don't you play this thing, or maybe you don't know what math is?" I'd be interested in hearing why people are so hell-bent on polishing this turd. Is it seriously just brand loyalty? Grog vindication? Mearls fanboy-ism? I mean, it offers literally no new mechanics. It's a compost of previous editions elements with no connective tissue. Why wouldn't you just go straight to the source and play AD&D, 3.pf, or Basic? What compels a $150 investment?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:I like how you craftily evade providing evidence for your claims while ignoring others' evidence for their own. What a cool guy! I realize that chart is just a norm to base things around, but I really like the idea of the math being more "spikey" at certain levels than others, of this monster's super-dangerous attacks being balanced by its very poor defenses, of players really kicking rear end at 5th level because fireball rule until you start fighting encounters at 7th level. I dunno. Things being so mathematically predictable feels bland and un-magical to me. I realize this triggers goons' asperger's, but it's how I feel. edit: Ferrinus posted:I can't help but ask for boring, dumb stuff if there's a dispute over the contents of my post history. At least we agree that your posts are dumb, boring stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:I realize that chart is just a norm to base things around, but I really like the idea of the math being more "spikey" at certain levels than others, of this monster's super-dangerous attacks being balanced by its very poor defenses, of players really kicking rear end at 5th level because fireball rule until you start fighting encounters at 7th level. I dunno. Things being so mathematically predictable feels bland and un-magical to me. I realize this triggers goons' asperger's, but it's how I feel. There's actually another list I was looking for that offers something of what you're talking about - there's a list of monster 'roles' that you can apply to the base stats - stuff like Sneaks that deal limited, spiky damage with slightly weaker defenses, Strikers that do a lot more damage but are even weaker, etc. I don't think there's a point to having stuff spike randomly - I guess I'm okay with some levels having more difficult threats than others, but it really just makes more work for me as a DM. moths posted:What compels a $150 investment? This is basically why I'm following this thread. It was hard enough convincing my group of players to update from 3E to 3.5. 4E was basically out of the question. I want a game that offers me more than either of those systems that would justify the time all of us would spend learning it, and gives some convincing arguments that I could relate to my players to get them to switch. So far, 5E doesn't really offer me much. IT BEGINS fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:At least we agree that your posts are dumb, boring stuff. I suddenly seize you by the collar and whirl around to slam you bodily into the brick wall I was standing stiffly against.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
moths posted:I'd be interested in hearing why people are so hell-bent on polishing this turd. Is it seriously just brand loyalty? Grog vindication? Mearls fanboy-ism? It's much neater, cleaner, tighter, and more polished than Pathfinder (which anecdotally is what I think most people are playing these days) while avoiding many of the things that turned some portion of the market off about 4e. It isn't perfectly optimized for speed, but it's a drat sight faster than pathfinder or 3.5e, and probably faster than most 4e encounters. They mostly fixed iterative attack proliferation and finicky bonuses, if nothing else. They reduced the number of out-of-turn actions, which I feel makes things smoother in practice. The feat system seems more interesting than 4e, too. These are things that appeal to me, anyway. I think the game was designed to be more accessible to new players than previous editions, and it probably succeeds at that goal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:I realize that chart is just a norm to base things around, but I really like the idea of the math being more "spikey" at certain levels than others, of this monster's super-dangerous attacks being balanced by its very poor defenses, of players really kicking rear end at 5th level because fireball rule until you start fighting encounters at 7th level. I dunno. Things being so mathematically predictable feels bland and un-magical to me. I realize this triggers goons' asperger's, but it's how I feel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
quote:He actively has counters to normally unbeatable stratagems like contingencied teleports, save or dies, mass minion spam, illusions, enemies immune to HP damage and more besides, and has strange abilities like the power to become invisible at-will, fly, cut through anything (buildings and magic materials included), ignore the effects of any planes of existence (including, for example, the Mindrape Atmosphere of the planes of ultimate good and evil), perceive any traces of magic, reflect spells back without spending a single action and I think I'm forgetting a few more things. if you want to play a demigod that's cool but its kind of obvious why 5e fighter was never going to be this. quote:What the gently caress is wrong with you? No, seriously, how is your brain so broken that you think telling a player 'you are nothing but a speedbump in the way of the valuable people, make something up' is a good thing for the game to say to a player? quote:I mean, it offers literally no new mechanics. It's a compost of previous editions elements with no connective tissue. Why wouldn't you just go straight to the source and play AD&D, 3.pf, or Basic? What compels a $150 investment? TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
polisurgist posted:Sure, it's a game with flaws. What would be really awesome would be to be able to have a conversation about those flaws and good way to work around or with them with people who are actually interested in that conversation and who might actually benefit from it without being swept under an avalanche of "instead of playing a game with problems like a moron, why don't you play this thing, or maybe you don't know what math is?" You mean like Jack The Lad's exhaustive Fighter DPR charts, determining from those that the Hand Crossbow Fighter is the best option from a DPR standpoint? We've had folks going through the MM trying desperately to reconcile the CR chart into something that allows for a DM to build an encounter that won't one-shot a party? You mean like back during the playtest when it was iteratively tested over, and over, and over, in an attempt to garner data to provide to the developers? This thread IS interested in having that conversation. It's just that each time someone says "Uh, from what I can tell, from the work I've done, I just can't fix the CR system into something that builds encounters which are actually informative and instructive to the DM using it." We've got someone jumping in to say "NOT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE 4E. WHY CAN'T WE TALK ABOUT 5E WITHOUT PEOPLE HATING ALL OVER IT." And we're getting kind of tired of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:35
|
|
