| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Diffan |
Posted - 09 Jan 2012 : 04:49:23
THIS thread speaks of something really big being announced by WotC tomorrow and there's all sorts of rumors floating around. One poster on Paizo says it was even talked about on CNN and the N.Y. Times. I asked for a link, but he was not forthcoming and further scrying attempts returned nada. Then I see Matt says to "keep an eye out for tomorrow" so I know something is being announced, but what?
Only time will tell and it might be something "meh" or something "Whoa!". Hopefully it'll be good because I'm seeing a resurgence of a LOT of negativity towards WotC (not here, mind you) and espically with Dancy's article hinting at how bad TRPGs are doing and the Past, Present, and Future articles that really paint Mike Mearls in a not so friendly light (IMO), I'm just kinda nervous.
Thoughs or wild speculations? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 12 Jan 2012 : 23:34:37
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Well maybe they will go for Mana points *shrugs*
Everything at-will all the time? 
*Not entirely a joke! (See 3.5 warlock for reference.)
Cheers
That class and two others are reasons I refused to buy anything 4th (3.5 did not do well either). |
| Markustay |
Posted - 12 Jan 2012 : 21:29:49
A Mana-point system that plays like both 4e ("dailies") and Vancian is possible - I had several hybrids myself.
You limit the spells known using a Vance-like system, and then allow them to cast as many as their points allow. Limited spells, without limiting their usage. It works, trust me. Other Spells not "stored in memory" are in a PC's spellbook, and can still be accessed, but then the ritual-rules kick-in (open the tome, read accurately, prepare components, etc - all time-consuming). This same system can be extended so folks can actually cast spells that are normally too powerful for them (and you can have interesting Sorcerer's Apprentice style scenarios). Just because you can read a spell in a book (and cast it) doesn't mean you can memorize it, or control it.
You control the over-usage of more powerful magics by combining Fatigue with Mana points, so players do have the option of casting multiple potent spells in a row, at the risk of leaving themselves drained for several hours. The players will have to learn to balance their needs with the risks (in other words, use magic frugally, even if they have the points to spare). If they do not want the very real simulation of fatigue, then they only need make the spells exponentially more costly at higher levels. A stat that has to do with "how many points at once" can also be a controlling factor, almost like the cool-down clock in CRPGs. In other words, if you had a Spell Power stat that was 50, and you spent more points then that in a single encounter, you would have to make SR's to continue casting. Like i said - several ways to implement it and still make it feel like D&D.
Mana Points are not bad unto themselves, but a system must be designed to handle any abuses players will contrive (and they will - its the nature of the beast).
As for the announcement - can't say I am surprised by it, but I can say I am surprised the announcement came so soon. I feel positive about that - they (WotC) have finally learned Full Disclosure is the best policy where the fans are concerned. Kudos to them.
I hope 5e is everything it can be, and that FR will rise from the ashes like Phoenix. |
| ZeshinX |
Posted - 12 Jan 2012 : 20:43:20
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Yes and no. I'll admit that I found that tome really really intriguing and I probably wouldn't play a melee-base class without at least some of those elements. But it doesn't have to get as magical as all that. I like how stances work (in the Bo9S and 4E) and I like how some maneuvers can be executed, like Wolf Fang Strike (move and attack with both weapons) but it doesn't have to get more ridiculous such as Shadow jumping, flying with flaming wings, or stealing strength of a targets body though necrotic draining. It can be more "realistic" than that IMO.
While I found overall the Bo9S to be quite awful, I thought the concept was quite excellent, so I share your yes and no thoughts on it. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 12 Jan 2012 : 20:33:23
quote:
Originally posted by ZeshinX
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
For fighters, I understand people's dislike of their Encounter/Daily power system of 4E and this needs to change. What about melee/martial character gaining "stances", something that's always "On" and provided certain bonuses when in a stance. You can then change the stance to suit different effects and give bonuses to weapons. So a Fighter that uses the Shieldsman Stance grants a minor benefit to an ally that near him (gotta stay away from square terminology) or maybe the Ferocious Stance, dealing a bit more damage with two-handed weapons? I think this puts a little more power into these classes while not making them seem like video games.
So basically a redo of Bo9S (Book of Nine Swords)?
Yes and no. I'll admit that I found that tome really really intriguing and I probably wouldn't play a melee-base class without at least some of those elements. But it doesn't have to get as magical as all that. I like how stances work (in the Bo9S and 4E) and I like how some maneuvers can be executed, like Wolf Fang Strike (move and attack with both weapons) but it doesn't have to get more ridiculous such as Shadow jumping, flying with flaming wings, or stealing strength of a targets body though necrotic draining. It can be more "realistic" than that IMO. |
| ZeshinX |
Posted - 12 Jan 2012 : 20:03:06
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
For fighters, I understand people's dislike of their Encounter/Daily power system of 4E and this needs to change. What about melee/martial character gaining "stances", something that's always "On" and provided certain bonuses when in a stance. You can then change the stance to suit different effects and give bonuses to weapons. So a Fighter that uses the Shieldsman Stance grants a minor benefit to an ally that near him (gotta stay away from square terminology) or maybe the Ferocious Stance, dealing a bit more damage with two-handed weapons? I think this puts a little more power into these classes while not making them seem like video games.
So basically a redo of Bo9S (Book of Nine Swords)? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Jan 2012 : 18:25:08
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Characters are central, dynamic, motive, vibrant, they are vital and make a story live, without them you have a setting populated by mannequins. Toons are simply avatars in a game, they offer limited variety, they're largely interchangeable in the end, they're even disposable - they can be killed off or deleted and replaced with new toons within moments.
Calling your characters toons is almost like an unconscious admission of how you really judge the characters and the game/story setting they exist within. It's a practice I personally discourage. Single-encounter NPC redshirts are toons, vital PCs and NPCs are not.
I used the word because I was, specifically, referring to my characters in an MMO.
I've been fiddling with making them into Realms NPCs, though. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 12 Jan 2012 : 14:41:22
Characters are central, dynamic, motive, vibrant, they are vital and make a story live, without them you have a setting populated by mannequins. Toons are simply avatars in a game, they offer limited variety, they're largely interchangeable in the end, they're even disposable - they can be killed off or deleted and replaced with new toons within moments.
Calling your characters toons is almost like an unconscious admission of how you really judge the characters and the game/story setting they exist within. It's a practice I personally discourage. Single-encounter NPC redshirts are toons, vital PCs and NPCs are not. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 19:37:55
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
For fighters, I understand people's dislike of their Encounter/Daily power system of 4E and this needs to change. What about melee/martial character gaining "stances", something that's always "On" and provided certain bonuses when in a stance.....I think this puts a little more power into these classes while not making them seem like video games.
Actually, having seen that mechanic on a couple of my own toons in LotRO, that seems very much like a video game.
What I was attempting to establish that Stances are less video-gamey than the Martial powers with Encounter/Daily based re-charge times. Stances at least have historical ties and it's not a far stretch to assume these same techniques or aspects could be applied to a game like D&D. Besides that, the idea is basic enough that it's not something a player has to keep a consistant eye on to "activate" which means less time picking and figuring out what "power" to use every round.
If not, well then I just don't know. I feel fighters until 4E have gotten the short end of the stick with D&D. The power curve of past iterations was a joke and I don't think going back to that is in any way, shape, or form a good idea. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 19:04:36
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
For fighters, I understand people's dislike of their Encounter/Daily power system of 4E and this needs to change. What about melee/martial character gaining "stances", something that's always "On" and provided certain bonuses when in a stance. You can then change the stance to suit different effects and give bonuses to weapons. So a Fighter that uses the Shieldsman Stance grants a minor benefit to an ally that near him (gotta stay away from square terminology) or maybe the Ferocious Stance, dealing a bit more damage with two-handed weapons? I think this puts a little more power into these classes while not making them seem like video games.
Actually, having seen that mechanic on a couple of my own toons in LotRO, that seems very much like a video game. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 17:54:23
Why can't both systems be supported (vancian/spell-point)? Isn't it possible to have one caster be Vancian and the other use spell-points to differentiate between styles yet still be balanced AND in the core rulebooks?
What I would implement is a sort of "go-to" spell system that either is always known or doesn't use spell-points so mages don't have to resort to mundane weapons if their DM isn't forth coming with magical items.
For fighters, I understand people's dislike of their Encounter/Daily power system of 4E and this needs to change. What about melee/martial character gaining "stances", something that's always "On" and provided certain bonuses when in a stance. You can then change the stance to suit different effects and give bonuses to weapons. So a Fighter that uses the Shieldsman Stance grants a minor benefit to an ally that near him (gotta stay away from square terminology) or maybe the Ferocious Stance, dealing a bit more damage with two-handed weapons? I think this puts a little more power into these classes while not making them seem like video games. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 16:59:42
Vancian swordplay might work, too. Where a low-level fighter can only swing his sword twice per day, or perhaps use specializations and special techniques a few times daily once reaching higher levels.
Vancian pickpockets, too. And Vancian blacksmiths, Vancian bakers, Vancian butchers. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 16:37:34
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
I really hope that Vancian magic doesn't get put back in. At the same time, I wasn't fond of dailies.
Maybe they'll move to something like a mana system, or power points. Wouldn't it be interesting to see "Weave points" on a character sheet? Heh!
George: "Chauncey, how strong are you in the Weave?"
Chauncey: "Forty-two"
George: "But thats..."
Chauncey: "Hush!"
And I smell another Realms-Shattering Event coming down the pike. 
I actually like the idea of the Vancian magic when combined with something LIKE the reserve feat idea. Some rules just need to be played with the numbers used. Maybe even a mix of the two where mages get to pick certain at will effects as they level up, but they still use memorization for the majority of their special spells. The strength of the Vancian magic was that you could "know" a lot more spells than you necessarily have memorized and therefore be versatile. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 16:32:46
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
I wouldn't worry overmuch, Diffan. Those that are using the Pathfinder rules (or the plethora of OSR games) won't likely come back to playtest the new edition, since they have what they want already. So, most of those doing the playtesting will be 4E fans and new players.
I wouldn't state that. I've only recently turned my eyes towards the pathfinder stuff. I think they've done some things right, but I will only say that they're getting things better than what was done with 4E. At the same time, I can see where some of the 4E rules could bear some fruit when mixed with some 3E rules (the ritual rules for instance, intrigue me. I believe there's a point where ritual magic can remove a lot of the extraneous spells that were getting created and never memorized.)... but overall, they went and dumbed it down way too much. If the original brand can come out with something that fixes the dumbing down, I'll just chalk the $300 I spent on Paizo books to an interesting investment to troll through for ideas. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 09 Jan 2012 : 18:33:16
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Well maybe they will go for Mana points *shrugs*
Everything at-will all the time?
*Not entirely a joke! (See 3.5 warlock for reference.)
Cheers
heh, yea and it was considered "soo over-powered"  |
| Therise |
Posted - 09 Jan 2012 : 18:15:58
quote:
Originally posted by Bakra
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
And I smell another Realms-Shattering Event coming down the pike.
You mean like this:
Spinner of Lies is a sequel to Sword of the Gods, and is also tied to the Rise of the Underdark, an event that will have bold, sweeping ramifications across (and under) the Forgotten Realms.
Oh my... really?
...and I see it's a Cordell book. Speculating early, it'll involve not only a massive RSE but some superpowered Marvel-style "anti-hero" will be fighting demigods and pulling on the strings of Lolth's web. Probably some far realms aberrations will do some inexplicable things like dance around mushrooms for a whole chapter, and then something "ancient and eeeeevill" will screw up the Underdark in some horrible way (because changing the cosmology and laying waste to Faerun's surface wasn't quite enough).
|
| Therise |
Posted - 09 Jan 2012 : 18:15:03
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Well maybe they will go for Mana points *shrugs*
Everything at-will all the time?
*Not entirely a joke! (See 3.5 warlock for reference.)
Cheers
Seriously, at-will all the time spells would be excellent!
Plus, they have to redo rituals. Just make those regular spells with a high mana or material component cost. If it's a complex and involved spell, just require time, expensive components, or maybe reading from the spellbook so you don't miss a key element.
In fact, I wouldn't mind if they kept the V,S,M aspects of spells, I'd like that. Such things tie in very well with novels, and make sense in a sympathetic magic kind of way.
|
| Bakra |
Posted - 09 Jan 2012 : 17:55:01
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
And I smell another Realms-Shattering Event coming down the pike.
You mean like this:
Spinner of Lies is a sequel to Sword of the Gods, and is also tied to the Rise of the Underdark, an event that will have bold, sweeping ramifications across (and under) the Forgotten Realms. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 09 Jan 2012 : 17:50:10
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Well maybe they will go for Mana points *shrugs*
Everything at-will all the time?
*Not entirely a joke! (See 3.5 warlock for reference.)
Cheers |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 09 Jan 2012 : 17:48:59
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
I wouldn't worry overmuch, Diffan. Those that are using the Pathfinder rules (or the plethora of OSR games) won't likely come back to playtest the new edition, since they have what they want already. So, most of those doing the playtesting will be 4E fans and new players.
Oh, I don't know. Having the chance to build a new edition that's even better? I think that's a carrot that has at least a chance of success.
This is not in any way to say that Pathfinder is lacking--I certainly don't think it is. The remarkable PFRPG system is built upon and improved over an already proven system (3.5). That in itself is the best argument for how this strategy to build 5e can succeed: the game can and should always be evolving, or else it stagnates.
If people had stopped at 2e and said "the game cannot ever be more pleasing to me!", then not only would we not have some of the awesome stuff we have (in which I include 3.x, all the OGL stuff, PFRPG, and 4e), then the tabletop RPG industry would be long gone. (Not to mention us grognards would still be scratching our heads over Thac0.)
Cheers |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 09 Jan 2012 : 17:38:49
Well maybe they will go for Mana points *shrugs* |
| Therise |
Posted - 09 Jan 2012 : 17:29:44
I really hope that Vancian magic doesn't get put back in. At the same time, I wasn't fond of dailies.
Maybe they'll move to something like a mana system, or power points. Wouldn't it be interesting to see "Weave points" on a character sheet? Heh!
George: "Chauncey, how strong are you in the Weave?"
Chauncey: "Forty-two"
George: "But thats..."
Chauncey: "Hush!"
And I smell another Realms-Shattering Event coming down the pike.
|
| Brimstone |
Posted - 09 Jan 2012 : 16:36:23
Here is the link to the playtest group. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 09 Jan 2012 : 16:20:12
I wouldn't worry overmuch, Diffan. Those that are using the Pathfinder rules (or the plethora of OSR games) won't likely come back to playtest the new edition, since they have what they want already. So, most of those doing the playtesting will be 4E fans and new players. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 09 Jan 2012 : 16:15:17
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Following Paizo's lead huh? Yea, if I want unbalanced classes, wizard instant-win buttons, Rogues that suck at life, and a plethora of skills that have absoutley no bearing on the actual game I'll just go play 3.5 or current Pathfinder.
I interpret that to mean that they are aping Paizo's technique in the sense that they are holding an Open Playtest, not that 5e will resemble PRPG mechanically. After all, that would basically be WotC going back in time to 3.5, and they've been there, done that.
I'm excited to see what new mechanical innovation takes place for 5e, and I hope that we'll see more emphasis placed on flavor integration from the very beginning of the process.
Cheers
Yet 75% of the criticism was from a mechanical viewpoint, which makes me wonder how much of it is going to revert to previous mechanics. The resurgence of Vancian magic, Base Attack Bonus, and spells that require the defender to roll against. Ability score penalties for certain races and a pigeonholing of those races to classes, or Skill ranks....lots and lots of ranks. Just how much of these aspcts are going to filter back into the game because it's what Paizo does or what 3.5 did?
These are elements that scare me, elements that I feel take away from the game or bog it down. Open Playtesting is great and I think Paizo did right by it and the fact that it was a free PDF download was awesome. So if WotC follows suit, I think there is a chance for success. But to be honest, the future scares me because people are lookiing so far into the past for good ideas and i'm of the opinion that the past really has nothing mechanically great to offer. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 09 Jan 2012 : 15:57:34
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Following Paizo's lead huh? Yea, if I want unbalanced classes, wizard instant-win buttons, Rogues that suck at life, and a plethora of skills that have absoutley no bearing on the actual game I'll just go play 3.5 or current Pathfinder.
I interpret that to mean that they are aping Paizo's technique in the sense that they are holding an Open Playtest, not that 5e will resemble PRPG mechanically. After all, that would basically be WotC going back in time to 3.5, and they've been there, done that.
I'm excited to see what new mechanical innovation takes place for 5e, and I hope that we'll see more emphasis placed on flavor integration from the very beginning of the process.
Cheers |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 09 Jan 2012 : 15:52:26
I missed seeing a link to the actual NYT article in this thread. In case no one has posted it yet:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/arts/video-games/dungeons-dragons-remake-uses-players-input.html?_r=3&hpw |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Jan 2012 : 15:50:00
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
It's official!
The student has become the teacher.
They are following Paizo's lead on 5E.
I just read the New York Times article, and I'm disappointed that they mention WotC's "exceedingly rare effort for the gaming industry over the next few months: asking hundreds of thousands of fans to tell them how exactly they should reboot the franchise" but fail to mention that Paizo did it before WotC, to great success. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Jan 2012 : 15:45:32
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
It's official!
The student has become the teacher.
They are following Paizo's lead on 5E.
Following Paizo's lead huh? Yea, if I want unbalanced classes, wizard instant-win buttons, Rogues that suck at life, and a plethora of skills that have absoutley no bearing on the actual game I'll just go play 3.5 or current Pathfinder.
Can't say I'm not suprised and I'll eat my words about Margaret's comments a few months back but I can't say I'm super-joyfully overjoyed with candy and sunshine. I just don't have the drive and crusader's zeal to support yet another sysetem.
Comments like that can be made for any edition. Let's not use the announcement of a new edition to re-open the edition wars, please. That'll happen soon enough.  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Jan 2012 : 15:33:44
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
It's official!
The student has become the teacher.
They are following Paizo's lead on 5E.
Yeah, I was thinking that when I read the part about open playtesting. I thought Paizo was brilliant for doing that...
And it's a far cry from the 4E playtesting, which was done in secret. And according to rumor at the time, playtesters were forbidden from making negative commentary (my only info on this comes from someone who claims he was one of the playtesters; I do not have solid proof).
I'm not surprised that they're announcing 5E. 4E has been out for a while, though I've not enough info to say whether or not it was time for a change. Them hiring back Monte Cook was a pretty strong indicator, too, and then Margaret Weis confirmed it. I said then that that was proof enough for me to be convinced, though my opinion on that -- as on so many other things we discuss here -- was not universal.
My overall reaction to this is "meh." Partially because I expected it, and partially because my rule-preference is now Pathfinder. I am neutral on this news release. I'll remain neutral on the ruleset, as well, until I have some hard data to use to form an opinion.
I hope some things will be different with this release of the rules, but time will tell.
I was actually hoping for something pertaining to pdfs of prior editions, though. When WotC yanked the sales of all legal pdfs (including re-downloading ones you'd already paid for, with the provision that you could download it multiple times  ), they said they were going to find an alternative to the prior business model. So far as I know, they've not said anything else since then, and the only alternatives are not legal ones.
I would encourage everyone to wait until we have some concrete information before forming an opinion on the ruleset. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 09 Jan 2012 : 15:23:10
From here :
The Forgotten Realms will be supported from the start, and a video game art studio from China has been hired to fully detail the Realms. I asked if going forward support would be continued for the current time after the Spellplague and the Neverwinter Campaign. A WotC spokesperson answered, "The Forgotten Realms has a rich history and we will support all of it. It is for the gamers to decide which time they would enjoy playing in." That would allow Wizards to take advantage of a massive back catalog of products; however, there are no current plans that we know of for other settings - we assume these will follow in later years. |
|
|
