|
I do like their idea of bounded accuracy. I don't think they achieved it, but it was an idea.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 09:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:I do like their idea of bounded accuracy. I don't think they achieved it, but it was an idea. e: capped ability scores are good and proficiency is a good evolution of 4e's scaling skills system. Splicer fucked around with this message at 10:03 on Dec 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
Zesty posted:So if I’m not interested in a more board gamey aspect of 4e, should I just go with Pathfinder to avoid the WotC led flaws? 4e is by far the best and most focused modern edition of Dungeons and Dragons. It’s not board-gamey; it’s presented well and is tightly designed, which are assets and not detriments. If you’re looking for the objectively best, most playable D&D, 4e is it. (I agree with gradenko that an older D&D is worth checking out too, as it’s equally well designed just with a different focus. Mentzer Basic would be my suggestion.) Now, 3.5/Pathfinder versus 5e is a thornier question. Pathfinder does have major issues like 5e does, and neither is as good as 4e/Basic. A number of the major issues are the exact same, really - natural language, spellcaster power levels and so on. Complicating things is that 5e really tried to reinvent the wheel a lot. Stuff like swarms and bonus actions and so on are 5e just redoing things that 3e/Pathfinder had already figured out years ago. A lot of 5e’s problems come down to redoing stuff, making the same mistakes, and having to fix it all over again. (Compare to 4e, which did redo things and did make them better, and 5e just ignored all of that.) In contrast, most of 5e’s major issues are already solved in Pathfinder, and Pathfinder’s own major issues likely have their own solutions somewhere in the Pathfinder product line. That product line is honestly one of Pathfinder’s major strengths. There’s now words and rules and books for pretty much everything, and they’re still making more. Beyond all that is the older 3.5/3.0 material, which is largely/somewhat compatible out of the book. If you want something for your game, it will be somewhere in there. But that’s a lot of material to buy and read and synthesize. It’s a big ask. 5e is newer and doesn’t have a strong, compatible lineage like Pathfinder does. There’s less of it, and WotC isn’t producing as much as Pathfinder does. So there’s less to read and less to use - but there’s also far less options, far less detail, and far less alternatives. 5e has problems, but it doesn’t give you tools to solve them like Pathfinder does. So you will be doing more yourself, and patching the game by hand a lot. In general, you’re looking at 5e as a newer, lighter option, and Pathfinder as a heavier, more established choice. I, as someone who runs Pathfinder commonly as my usual game of choice, can’t think of anything that 5e has going for it over Pathfinder in terms of rules. But I’m accustomed to the rules of Pathfinder, and I know where to find everything I need. Popularity definitely goes to 5e, however. It’s won over the hearts and minds of many through popular recorded games like Critical Role and the Adventure Zone. Because of that, it does have a larger, more vocal player base right now. And for some people having the actual Dungeons and Dragons name on their game is really important. If you’re recruiting for players in real life, 5e will be easier to find people for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:http://dmdavid.com/tag/do-you-know-that-good-dm-people-talk-about-i-hate-that-guy/ Except that wasn’t my point at all. My point was superseding WotC logic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 10:02
|
|
|
You have stats and stuff and roll a d20. That will be $150, ask your DM to fix it up so it works properly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 10:58
|
|
|
Splicer posted:e: capped ability scores are good and proficiency is a good evolution of 4e's scaling skills system. Just dropping stat increases entirely would have helped bounded accuracy and made it more in line with the "classic feel" they were going for. Arivia posted:Mentzer Basic would be my suggestion. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 11:03 on Dec 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 11:00
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Just dropping stat increases entirely would have helped bounded accuracy and made it more in line with the "classic feel" they were going for. But then nobody could dismiss the various problems with Feats by saying "those are optional".
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:You have stats and stuff and roll a d20. Stats and Stuff is my new Lasers and Feelings hack. Original idea do not steal
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 11:06
|
|
|
Not having magic items that set your strength to values from 19 to 29 also would have helped the bounded accuracy. Though that's more of an Adventurers League problem than a normal game one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 11:07
|
|
|
I think to really nail bounded accuracy, you'd have to have like "super damage" that counts as 100x or something to avoid the 48d4+9d10 bullshit that you need to be successful in the mid to late game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 11:09
|
|
|
Emy posted:Not having magic items that set your strength to values from 19 to 29 also would have helped the bounded accuracy. Though that's more of an Adventurers League problem than a normal game one. "Your stats are capped at 20" is cool and good design "Your stats are capped at 20, with a few exceptions" can still be good design, if you're leveraging the exceptions for thematic purposes like with Barbarians "Your stats are capped at 20, and there are a bunch of items that let you exceed this" is farcical Babylon Astronaut posted:I think to really nail bounded accuracy, you'd have to have like "super damage" that counts as 100x or something to avoid the 48d4+9d10 bullshit that you need to be successful in the mid to late game. I will die on the incredibly mundane hill of "player damage should increase with every character level" (and yes, acknowledging that 13th Age already does this)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 11:32
|
|
|
Zesty posted:I’m not super huge into this hobby, but it seems to me like the DM can change anything they want to make it work. So eh? A good DM/good group can make literally any game system fun. That does not mean I'm in a rush to recommend GURPs to anyone. It shouldn't be their job to be the DM, which is already a hard job that demands a fair bit of time and energy, and an ad hoc game designer who has to Fix Your Poorly Made System with jury rigged solutions. 5E is serviceable. That's about the best I can say for it. It is, at the very least, not 3.5/Pathfinder which are legitimately extremely poorly made. Captain Oblivious fucked around with this message at 12:44 on Dec 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 12:40
|
|
|
Why do people think 5e is better designed than 3e/Pathfinder? Sure, both of them are bad systems with a host of problems. 3e was published back in 2000 and has received largely iterative tweaks since, resulting in Pathfinder. It was cutting edge and a huge evolution when it was originally released. 5e in contrast was published in 2014 and either deliberately ignores the last decade’s advances in game design or is intentionally retrograde and trying to include bad design as a sop to “immersion.” It certainly doesn’t bring anything new to the table, while 3e did. Someone please explain this to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
"3e/Pathfinder has lots of rules, and lots of those rules are bad. 5e has less rules, which makes it easier to run" That's the basic gist of it. And yes, there's a lot of nuance to that statement if you want to get to the nitty-gritty, but if you're coming from a place where you didn't like how much STUFF there was in 3e/PF, you'd get an impression of 5e being "better" on account of not having an entire page dedicated to a table of what does and doesn't trigger AOOs. I don't agree with it, but I can see where it comes from.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Why do people think 5e is better designed than 3e/Pathfinder? Sure, both of them are bad systems with a host of problems. 3e was published back in 2000 and has received largely iterative tweaks since, resulting in Pathfinder. It was cutting edge and a huge evolution when it was originally released. It's 2 more than 3E
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
Does 4e have this terrible short rest system that 5e has? It completely breaks the balance when different characters have different amounts of abilities and power refresh on a short rest and there's no strict rules on how much you should fight before getting your stuff back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Zesty posted:I’m not super huge into this hobby, but it seems to me like the DM can change anything they want to make it work. So eh? Yeah uh kinda but its the difference between doing a tonne of work and maybe hoping you get it right but anyway. The point is doing work to fix stuff isn't always fun and the GM should have fun too. I complain about 5e constantly but if thats what is looking appealing to you and your friends, give it a go and see how it is for your group. kingcom fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Dec 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 13:42
|
|
|
CJ posted:Does 4e have this terrible short rest system that 5e has? It completely breaks the balance when different characters have different amounts of abilities and power refresh on a short rest and there's no strict rules on how much you should fight before getting your stuff back. No. 4e powers are divided into three tiers: At-will, which means you can use it as often as you like, round-after-round Encounter, which means it comes back after every encounter (what 5e considers a Short Rest) Daily, which means it comes back after every Extended Rest (what 5e considers a Long Rest) The other big change is that a 4e Short Rest is 5 minutes, and you are for all intents and purposes supposed to have a Short Rest after every encounter. So At-will powers can be used as often as you want, Encounter powers can be used once every fight, and Daily powers can be used once every day. There's no awkwardness like in 5e where you're kinda sorta supposed to have one Short Rest after every TWO fights, but then the One Hour narrative duration makes it difficult to fit-in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:"Boardgamey" is a meaningless descriptor. If you want to hit a dude in 4e, you roll a d20, add modifiers, and hit if the result is equal to or higher than the target's Armor Class. Boardgamey is a fine descriptor and 4E has it, at least in comparison to other RPGs. It's not necessarily negative. In 4E it's a result of cleaning up 3E/Pathfinder's garbage pile of tactical miniatures awfulness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:No.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
4e codified and balanced the game in a way it had never been before. You could be reasonably assured that if you took a class, you would be just as powerful or useful as any other class. The designers took the core mechanics of the game (combat, as every DnD has been) and made them amazing. It had some missteps (skill challenges, length of combat) but the key thing that detractors latched onto was the combat. "It's just a drat video game!" "They ripped off WoW." "This game is only about combat, you can't roleplay with it." All three of those statements are ones I've personally heard and they're all patently insane. If you need rules in order to roleplay your character, you need to take a step back and reexamine why you're playing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
I think 4e is fine as a game. The D&D title just caused it some issues. It was simply too different from the versions of the game that came before it. Which alienated the people not fond of the big changes.
MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Dec 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
Sax Solo posted:Boardgamey is a fine descriptor and 4E has it, at least in comparison to other RPGs. It's not necessarily negative. In 4E it's a result of cleaning up 3E/Pathfinder's garbage pile of tactical miniatures awfulness. Sure. Please define it then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I think 4e is fine as a game. The D&D title just caused it some issues. It was simply too different from the versions of the game that came before it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
Did not have an actual quote in mind. But here if you just want to check out the rules for 5e the Basic rules and the SRD can be an ok starting point. http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop/players-basic-rules http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop/dm-basic-rules https://open5e.com/
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:Yeah the rules gravitate a lot more toward combat (and it's a lot better at it really). Of course, nothing prevent you to go full free form roleplaying between combats. What i really hated is the destruction of previous settings to make them fit the new rules systems and races. Like, Wizard gently caress you, just create a new setting for your game and allow the grognards to keep the old ones if they do not like dragonborns. I do like how when they went back to the old Great Wheel they did take some of the cooler parts of the 4e Cosmology and inserted them in unobtrusive ways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
d&d has always been a game centered around combat with skills as a method for getting you to the next combat. makes sense that the version that did combat well would be popular
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Eberron should have been the default 4e setting
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
What was the Last Stand ability and thresholds for the auto kill of low HP creatures?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
I think the autokill was around 20 HP, since I remember someone saying it was basically identical to the Deathdealer's ability in SoTDL. (It was a relatively high level ability.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:Eberron should have been the default 4e setting Yes. "Points of Light" felt hollow and too make-your-own-fun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:What was the Last Stand ability and thresholds for the auto kill of low HP creatures? All Fighters gained the Defy Death ability at level 9. If they were reduced to 0 HP but were not killed outright, they could be reduced to 1 HP instead if they could pass a DC 15 Con save. This comboed well with the Indomitable ability, which back then meant Advantage on all saving throws. All Fighters also gained the Fighter's Supremacy ability at level 20 (instead of a fourth attack). If they hit a target with 20 HP or less, that target would be automatically reduced to 0 HP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Was that 20 max HP or 20 current HP?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:All Fighters gained the Defy Death ability at level 9. If they were reduced to 0 HP but were not killed outright, they could be reduced to 1 HP instead if they could pass a DC 15 Con save. This comboed well with the Indomitable ability, which back then meant Advantage on all saving throws. This sounds awesome. (And I mean awesome, not OP)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
I don’t know what the damage numbers looked like in the playtest, but if a level 20 Fighter isn’t doing at least 20 damage on a hit* by level 20 then they’ve done something really wrong, so this feature seems pretty redundant and I honestly prefer the extra attack. *2d6 +10 (GWM) +5 (Str) +3 (magic weapon) = 20 damage if you roll 1s on weapon damage
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:http://dmdavid.com/tag/do-you-know-that-good-dm-people-talk-about-i-hate-that-guy/ I find that being that guy is almost always when to say gently caress it to a rule, when to bring it back for a single encounter for fun and the ability to make it work. The further back in time you go the more likely you are to develop these improvisational skills because quite frankly large segments of the rules were awkward and unworkable. Occasionally which rules were awkward and unworkable varied by group, which is kind of a neat trick. 4th edition was literally built a different concept. Back in 2001 when they were explaining it at Comic-con the idea was the entire system would be playable on computer. If things worked right you might not even need a gm. I'm pretty sure they never got to that point, but it definitely shows in design. All of the 3.5 and earlier players I know disliked 4th because in the early store games they played it was a lot harder to do stupid goofy poo poo, generally met with a "there's no rule for that." That coupled with the later focus on showing up, running a few encounters, and calling it a day, left it feeling like a very different game. I'm not going to call it a worse game, because from my perspective they aren't really comparable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
blastron posted:I don’t know what the damage numbers looked like in the playtest, but if a level 20 Fighter isn’t doing at least 20 damage on a hit* by level 20 then they’ve done something really wrong, so this feature seems pretty redundant and I honestly prefer the extra attack. I don't know how the feature was written, but perhaps it was meant to execute if a hit reduced a monster below 20 hp?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:Was that 20 max HP or 20 current HP? Current. Blastron is technically correct that you probably won't ever need to use it since your attack should do more than 20 damage anyway, but it's the principle of the thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
CubeTheory posted:I don't know how the feature was written, but perhaps it was meant to execute if a hit reduced a monster below 20 hp? Oh yeah, if it was “the fighter kills anything they personally drop below 20 HP” then that’s amazing and I’m sorry to see it go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:EDIT: another very demoralizing outcome was watching Fighters lose damage-on-a-miss, turning their Superiority Dice recovery from per-round to per-encounter, turning Advantage on all saves into limited use Advantage on saves, losing a "Last Stand" ability, and losing an "auto kill all enemies under a certain HP" ability. This sounds great. Would you expect problems with dropping the playtest fighter into release-version 5e? I'm looking at classes and maneuvers if it matters. E: those don't have the kill-under-20 feature, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 19:26
|
|
