| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 18 May 2012 : 15:31:49
The much awaited public playtest has finally been announced (though quietly, and only on their site, unlike the very public announcement of the development of the new edition). |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Diffan |
Posted - 19 May 2013 : 12:56:59
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Healing surges as we saw them in 4E are gone, for now. I'm hoping for an alternative healing method provided in the DMG for groups who like the mechanic. This is supposed to be a modular style game afterall, so lets hope people can have "official" means to craft the game they want. There are Hit Die, however, which are similiar to 3E in that when you gain levels you gain additional HD. The difference is in 3E this was just an indicator of level or "self" where as in D&D:Next players can use a Healer's Kit to 'spend' their HD to regain hit points during a short rest.
As much as I dislike how 4e moved clerics away from the 'healer role', I have to look inward and realize this is because this was something we didn't 'grow up with'. Many of us want D&D to stay D&D, even when certain changes may be for the better.
I'm not sure if 4E moved clerics away from the role, instead I feel it introduce others to fulfill that same role on generally equal terms. So in a sense it removed their requirement from any given party as a decent way to heal, so I see where your coming from. But make no mistake the 4E Cleric (Templar/PHB version) is THE best healer in the game. No other leader (Bard, Warlord, Shaman, etc.) can heal or keep a party continuing on as the Cleric can. This is really how they differ within the same role. Clerics allow allies to heal without spending their most important resource (Healing Surges, bad name I know) but still benefit from having a good surge value. The Warlord, by comparison, does a good job of making allies Fighter better and quicker with the hope that monsters die in a much more timely fashion that won't require healing-aid. I can only dream that we see this sort of diversity with D&D:Next.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
For years I recall people not wanting to be a cleric. I had to almost always add an NPC priest to the party, because it was just a damn boring role to play. 4e fixes that, but in such a way as to make many folks say, "This isn't D&D!"
I agree with you that it would be nice for them to have MANY options so that gamers can simulate the play/edition style they prefer. After all, this is what they promised, isn't it?
Yep, pretty much. While I personally liked playing Clerics in v3.5 and had no problem being "Team Doctor" what I hated about it was that I was busy keeping allies patched up rather than engaging enemies. 4E and now D&D:Next fixed that because healing spells have the tag Word of Power, in that it's a swift action to cast and attack in the same turn. I do agree with you that Healing Surgs/Values were a rapid departure from traditional D&D and that might be one of the main reasons why people abandonded 4E early on. I'd liked to have had a far less 'gamist' name attached to the system, but it is what it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
The stated roles (Defender, striker, etc) are gone but the base mechanics are still there, like they've always been, that push you down a specific role. Fighters still have great HP and Armor proficiencies which push them to defend (except now they don't have any reason for monsters to engage them again). Wizards still have the worse HP and Armor and only cast spells. They don't even get Weapon Attack bonuses (so a 20th level Wizard with a Strenght score of 10 is going to get a +0 to his weapon attack). Rogues are on a different Weapon Attack progression (along with Clerics and Druids) that make them weaker in combat when compared to Fighters. Yep, it's a lot like a simplified version of 3E.
Roles have always been there, 4e just better defined them, which made people feel they were getting shoe-horned into specific jobs. The fact is, Wizards were always better spellcasters, and fighters made the best defenders, etc. Unfortunately, after the designers decided what they felt the role of each class should be, we weren't left with may options for out-of-the-box thinking. Not like it was in 3e, at any rate.
There was always deviations from the core "role" for each class. Like I posted in the above comment, a Fighter "defends" by hitting people with his axe and if they move or attack someone else, he gets a free attack to do it again. What Fighter doesn't want to do this? Similiarly, Rogues and Rangers do a LOT of damage to single or multiple targets and thus, their strikers. Nothing is really stopping them from goading a monster into attacking them rather than the wizard, they just don't have the codified mechanics that help in such a goading. Wizards have always been the master at battlefield spells and area effects. So naturally they have the best options to control a lof of what goes on, from restrining specific monsters to weakening a whole crowed or just light them on fire with straight up damage spells. The roles were intended to help guide newer players into the best fit for a class, not to hamstring options or out-of-box thinking.
My problem with D&D:Next is that without roles, classes lose focus. There is no real design goals except throwing stuff at the board and see what sticks. The Fighter, for example, has no option or baked-in feature that makes him a threat to enemies. So why would they (enemies) fight a guy covered in protective gear and aimed to kill them when there's a guy that wearing leather and looks no so beefy or a guy wearing NO armor and carrying around a stick. Kobolds might be dumb but they know magic when they see it and running circles around the Fighter go hammer the mage is the best chance they have at winning the battle. Sure, the fighter can chase them down on his turn but armor prevents long distance and unless you fight every battle at an entrance then it's going to be come a fairly boring combat sequence.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Maybe a lot of the hate toward the terminology stemmed from the general hate toward 4e in general. I think a LOT of 4e is/was salvageable, but people wouldn't give it a chance (after all, we had designers telling us we had been playing a 'bad' version of D&D for years... thats was sort of like calling us all stupid).
I think the bottom line is, it was piss-poor PR. You can sell anything to anyone, so long as you can speak eloquently. Seems to me, a lot of folks were chewing on their own feet most of the time. I am not defending what they did to FR, or even the game system... I am just saying that "a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down". All we got was a lot of vinegar (and smug expressions).
Agree with all of this. Their PR was really pitiful and while I didn't take offense to the series of web-comics and lead-ups to 4E's debut, I can see why some did. People were hating on it even before it was released and that's a hard start to come into.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
As for the rest, 4e may have been a victim of its own accomplishments. In other words, they may have done what they set out to do a bit too well. The game was supremely balanced, and easier to design for (and run), but people had gotten used to a lopsided system that often spun around in circles. Folks like to build characters that are better then everyone else - that was part of the fun. When everyone is "equal", you take a lot of the appeal out of the game.
The weird part is, they should have caught that problem more then anyone. After all, aren't the designers the same guys who get their ears chewed-off at every convention by fans who want to tell them how much cooler their character is then anyone else's? What did we have in 4e? "Oh man, my fighter is SO level four! He can level four better then anyone! And when he defends, he really defends... he is like a level four defender or something!"
Thats kinda the way it played out. You take away a geek's 'bragging rights', and what have you got left? All thats left is roleplaying... and lets face it, most gamers I've encountered suck at that. It was up to US to make it fun, and we just weren't up to the task (many of us).
Well, gander over to the Character Optimization boards for 4E and you'll see the stark disparity from classes within the same role as well as ones that aren't. The 4E Ranger is, hands down, the MOST damaging class in the game....bar none. The Fighter is often one of the strongest Defenders in the game and does a far better job at defending than the Paladin, Warden, or Swordmage. The Wizard is THE best controller, even after many of it's spells and feature combinations were 'nerfed' for fear of being too powerful. Other classes like the Assassin (Draogn Mag. version), Bladesinger, Vampire, and Binder are often ridiculed as the worst designed classes of 4E. With a few feats and Themes, most of their "style" can pulled off far better by existing classes and still be pretty decent at their designed role.
Bragging rights haven't gone away, they just morphed into something different. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 18 May 2013 : 16:34:13
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I still don't really understand the cookie-cutter thing?
The reason it felt cookie-cutter was that every fighter (for example) got the same abilities at the same levels. So Fighter 1 at 7th level would have all of the same abilities as Fighter 2 at 7th level.
I'm going to assume you mean 4E, but that doesn't really jive in comparison to my experience. Lets take my buddy who just made a 7th level Minotaur Fighter (for our 4E Ravnica campaign, based off the Magic: The Gathering's setting). He uses an Executioners Axe (superior weapon) and grabbed exploits that facilitate BIG damage output. Most of them are just straight up damage and a few utility powers that allow him to engage multiple foes at once. In short, he's a BIG BRUISER but he's also one that enemies don't want to ignore (ie. him being a Defender). His feats help make his attacks more destructive and he's pretty scary when he charges.
Compare this to my 7th level Human Fighter that went with the Tempest style. He chose exploits that favor mobility, dual-weapon attacks, and stances that make him more of a multi-attacker with light blades than a SMASH style character. He can still do a good job of defending his allies (because class features help) but how he fights is very much different than the Minotaur Great Weapon fighter. He "dances" into battle with his short swords, wearing chainmail where the Minotaur charges in wearing Plate armor.
The vast array of exploits available to any given class varies so much that it's really hard to have two characters of the same class/level look or play the same.
How this relates to 5E, well I'm not sure. Characters still get feats that help differentiate between them and their style of play also changes it up some. If your going for a Fighter that wields a bow, you'll probably use light armor and light weapons where as a Fighter using chainmail and a shield is going to pick different feats and stunts from a short list. But two bow fighters are going to look exactly the same because there's no variations on abilities within a class.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Back in 2E, I played many fighters. One was a minotaur, who relied on brute strength and swung a very big sword (or axe, or club, and occasionally started combat by throwing a dead goblin from the previous encounter). One relied on precision strikes with his rapier and not getting hit. One relied on his katana, and only on his katana, and could whip that thing around faster than a regular fighter with a dagger. It was his weapon and his armor. One only got into melee when he couldn't avoid it, and preferred to stay in the background and let his arrows do the talking.
If all of them got "swing sword really hard!" at 3rd level, that would have been useless to two of them -- even though they were all of the same class.
That was one of the first things I noticed when I first saw the 4E rules, and it was one of the reasons I wasn't interested in playing it. Having played MMOs with exactly that same mechanic, it wasn't something I wanted to do for pen and paper -- I want to say "third level, new combat ability, which of these many choices shall I take to further the character concept I have chosen?"
I'm not saying its a bad system, it's just not one that interests me.
I think people get caught up too much on the whole "Role" thing that was assigned classes. I'll freely admit that when it debued, Fighters were pretty much given limited exploits to perform the same role. That might have been what your talking about, as there wasn't much difference except for a small effect and a change in the weapon's damage output. After a while, however, Fighters got probably the biggest amounts of support that you could virtually play almost anystyle (except for a bow-wielder with special powers, you needed to Multiclass into Ranger for that *shruggs*). A Tempest style is going to fight different than a Brawler style who is going to fight different than a Great Weapon style who is going to fight different than a Battlerager style. Sure, they can all defend their allies well because that's a basic premise of what Fighters do, but the variations in how someone does this is greatly different than someone else of the same class.
Also, the mechanic that lets a Fighter "defend" is really simple. You attack a guy and if he moves or attacks someone else, you get to hit them again. What Fighter doesn't want to do that? |
| Markustay |
Posted - 18 May 2013 : 15:38:41
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Healing surges as we saw them in 4E are gone, for now. I'm hoping for an alternative healing method provided in the DMG for groups who like the mechanic. This is supposed to be a modular style game afterall, so lets hope people can have "official" means to craft the game they want. There are Hit Die, however, which are similiar to 3E in that when you gain levels you gain additional HD. The difference is in 3E this was just an indicator of level or "self" where as in D&D:Next players can use a Healer's Kit to 'spend' their HD to regain hit points during a short rest.
As much as I dislike how 4e moved clerics away from the 'healer role', I have to look inward and realize this is because this was something we didn't 'grow up with'. Many of us want D&D to stay D&D, even when certain changes may be for the better. For years I recall people not wanting to be a cleric. I had to almost always add an NPC priest to the party, because it was just a damn boring role to play. 4e fixes that, but in such a way as to make many folks say, "This isn't D&D!"
I agree with you that it would be nice for them to have MANY options so that gamers can simulate the play/edition style they prefer. After all, this is what they promised, isn't it?
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
The stated roles (Defender, striker, etc) are gone but the base mechanics are still there, like they've always been, that push you down a specific role. Fighters still have great HP and Armor proficiencies which push them to defend (except now they don't have any reason for monsters to engage them again). Wizards still have the worse HP and Armor and only cast spells. They don't even get Weapon Attack bonuses (so a 20th level Wizard with a Strenght score of 10 is going to get a +0 to his weapon attack). Rogues are on a different Weapon Attack progression (along with Clerics and Druids) that make them weaker in combat when compared to Fighters. Yep, it's a lot like a simplified version of 3E.
Roles have always been there, 4e just better defined them, which made people feel they were getting shoe-horned into specific jobs. The fact is, Wizards were always better spellcasters, and fighters made the best defenders, etc. Unfortunately, after the designers decided what they felt the role of each class should be, we weren't left with may options for out-of-the-box thinking. Not like it was in 3e, at any rate.
Maybe a lot of the hate toward the terminology stemmed from the general hate toward 4e in general. I think a LOT of 4e is/was salvageable, but people wouldn't give it a chance (after all, we had designers telling us we had been playing a 'bad' version of D&D for years... thats was sort of like calling us all stupid).
I think the bottom line is, it was piss-poor PR. You can sell anything to anyone, so long as you can speak eloquently. Seems to me, a lot of folks were chewing on their own feet most of the time. I am not defending what they did to FR, or even the game system... I am just saying that "a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down". All we got was a lot of vinegar (and smug expressions).
As for the rest, 4e may have been a victim of its own accomplishments. In other words, they may have done what they set out to do a bit too well. The game was supremely balanced, and easier to design for (and run), but people had gotten used to a lopsided system that often spun around in circles. Folks like to build characters that are better then everyone else - that was part of the fun. When everyone is "equal", you take a lot of the appeal out of the game.
The weird part is, they should have caught that problem more then anyone. After all, aren't the designers the same guys who get their ears chewed-off at every convention by fans who want to tell them how much cooler their character is then anyone else's? What did we have in 4e? "Oh man, my fighter is SO level four! He can level four better then anyone! And when he defends, he really defends... he is like a level four defender or something!"
Thats kinda the way it played out. You take away a geek's 'bragging rights', and what have you got left? All thats left is roleplaying... and lets face it, most gamers I've encountered suck at that. It was up to US to make it fun, and we just weren't up to the task (many of us). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 May 2013 : 14:59:37
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I still don't really understand the cookie-cutter thing? In 5E every single fighter gets Expertise Die that increase with level. He can choose specific "stunts" (for lack of a better word) to spend these on and the choice is determined by how a player wants to fight. This choice is, as far as I know, one you make once and don't change. Sure, there's decisions based on options within a class but I don't really see how that's much different than having 14 exploits to choose from that do a variety of different things in 4E? For example, a 1st level Fighter gets Death Dealer where he can choose between Deep Cut (roll 1d6 expertise die, add it to the damage done), Ricochet (roll 1d6 expertise die and choose another creature within 5' of a creature you successfully hit with a ranged attack. The second target takes the die rolled + Dex mod in damage).
The reason it felt cookie-cutter was that every fighter (for example) got the same abilities at the same levels. So Fighter 1 at 7th level would have all of the same abilities as Fighter 2 at 7th level.
Back in 2E, I played many fighters. One was a minotaur, who relied on brute strength and swung a very big sword (or axe, or club, and occasionally started combat by throwing a dead goblin from the previous encounter). One relied on precision strikes with his rapier and not getting hit. One relied on his katana, and only on his katana, and could whip that thing around faster than a regular fighter with a dagger. It was his weapon and his armor. One only got into melee when he couldn't avoid it, and preferred to stay in the background and let his arrows do the talking.
If all of them got "swing sword really hard!" at 3rd level, that would have been useless to two of them -- even though they were all of the same class.
That was one of the first things I noticed when I first saw the 4E rules, and it was one of the reasons I wasn't interested in playing it. Having played MMOs with exactly that same mechanic, it wasn't something I wanted to do for pen and paper -- I want to say "third level, new combat ability, which of these many choices shall I take to further the character concept I have chosen?"
I'm not saying its a bad system, it's just not one that interests me. |
| EytanBernstein |
Posted - 18 May 2013 : 08:53:06
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
I've been playing a playtest campaign for the last year. We've had about 30 sessions and have been slowly folding in the revised rules as they come out. I think we've enjoyed it.
Overall, I'd say that it's a lot closer to 3.X than to 4E, sprinkled with a smattering of other edition inspiration and a handful of the better ideas from 4E.
Yea, we came to that same conclusion about it being a lot closer to v3.5 with some other...elements of other editions. I still only see one or two ideas from 4E that have been working but I can only hope for more options as the playtest rolls on or once they start producing the actual game. If I can have a lite-4E with lower numbers, faster combat, and fun options that still provide players with a healthy amount of tools and features then it'll be a win-win in my book.
Have you added in anything different or houseruled stuff into the playtest so far Eytan? I'm looking for other elements to add as well as homebrew classes that work well with this system. I have a friend working on a Factotum and I'm currently working on an Assassin that functions similiar to the 4E shadow-based one with elements of the Swordsage plus Shadow Hand maneuvers.
Jeff Lasala is running the game, not me, so he has more say on what gets houseruled. I wouldn't say we've houseruled so much as slowly changed the game as the playtest packets come out. We haven't adopted every aspect of every class/race/feat update instantly, instead using a level up as an opportunity to gradually make changes. And where we wanted things that weren't created yet (this happens to be an Eberron game), we just made them up, trying to use the new system as a guide. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 18 May 2013 : 06:18:43
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
So 5e will be what 4e should have been? Great!
I knew there was a slew of really good ideas in it - they just got buried under all the bad (hype and otherwise).
Looking forward to buying these rules when they come out (I haven't bothered with the playtest materials in a LONG time).
Meh, not really. For D&D:Next to have happend we needed 4E to happen, letting the cat out of the bag as it were. Despite what many people think 4E sold extreamly well it's first two and a half years on the market but then when a LOT of stuff started to occur (no Virtual Table, Pathfinder gaining steam, RIDICULOUS amounts of semi-crappy content via DDI and the change over to Essentials) and they weren't hitting the margin Hasbro aimed for, they pretty much were on their way to starting up D&D:Next.
As for good ideas, they haven't really taken any away from 4E except for spellcasters with at-will spells (ala cantrips and orisons) and healing being a swift action spell (meaning a cleric can heal and attack in the same turn). Some good DM tips on creating combat for players and the monsters have a more streamlined feel. Everything else seems to be a simplified version of v3.5 to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Does 5E get rid of healing surges, naming roles after MMOs, balancing every level of every class against every other, and the cookie-cutter approach to class advancement? By the latter, I refer to how every member of any particular class had the same abilities as any other member of that class, at the same level.
Healing surges as we saw them in 4E are gone, for now. I'm hoping for an alternative healing method provided in the DMG for groups who like the mechanic. This is supposed to be a modular style game afterall, so lets hope people can have "official" means to craft the game they want. There are Hit Die, however, which are similiar to 3E in that when you gain levels you gain additional HD. The difference is in 3E this was just an indicator of level or "self" where as in D&D:Next players can use a Healer's Kit to 'spend' their HD to regain hit points during a short rest.
The stated roles (Defender, striker, etc) are gone but the base mechanics are still there, like they've always been, that push you down a specific role. Fighters still have great HP and Armor proficiencies which push them to defend (except now they don't have any reason for monsters to engage them again). Wizards still have the worse HP and Armor and only cast spells. They don't even get Weapon Attack bonuses (so a 20th level Wizard with a Strenght score of 10 is going to get a +0 to his weapon attack). Rogues are on a different Weapon Attack progression (along with Clerics and Druids) that make them weaker in combat when compared to Fighters. Yep, it's a lot like a simplified version of 3E.
As for balance, there is some but it tends to swing from one spectrum to the next depending on the Packet. Since codified powers are now gone, being reverted back to only Spellcasters get nice things, it's hard to judge what's more powerful than the next. Fighters get incentive to maintain their class via Deadly Strike (actually, all weapon-based users get this) which increases the number of weapon die you roll when attacking. So a 5th level Fighter using a Longsword would roll 2d8 for the damage due to Deadly Strike. This ability, however, cannot be used with Multiattack (an ability to attack multiple foes on your turn). Wizards cantrips scale in similiar fashion as an attempt to maintain some consistant relevancy throughout a character's career.
I still don't really understand the cookie-cutter thing? In 5E every single fighter gets Expertise Die that increase with level. He can choose specific "stunts" (for lack of a better word) to spend these on and the choice is determined by how a player wants to fight. This choice is, as far as I know, one you make once and don't change. Sure, there's decisions based on options within a class but I don't really see how that's much different than having 14 exploits to choose from that do a variety of different things in 4E? For example, a 1st level Fighter gets Death Dealer where he can choose between Deep Cut (roll 1d6 expertise die, add it to the damage done), Ricochet (roll 1d6 expertise die and choose another creature within 5' of a creature you successfully hit with a ranged attack. The second target takes the die rolled + Dex mod in damage).
What I'm changing is creating two paths a Fighter can take. The first is called Weaponmaster and he doesn't choose which one he wants, he can use any single exploit there is but it takes an action (without using Expertise Die, Multiattack, or Deadly Strike) to swith out an option. The Expertise Die is a d6. The other path is Weapon Specialist, which functions just like the version is now except the expertise die is increasd to a d8.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Please note this is not edition-bashing, but rather me asking if those elements of 4E that I most disliked are going to be preserved.
Years ago, I probably would've taken offense and attempted to argue each point but I just don't care anymore. Play what makes you happy and spread the love that is D&D, regardless of ones preferred edition. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 23:44:03
Does 5E get rid of healing surges, naming roles after MMOs, balancing every level of every class against every other, and the cookie-cutter approach to class advancement? By the latter, I refer to how every member of any particular class had the same abilities as any other member of that class, at the same level.
Please note this is not edition-bashing, but rather me asking if those elements of 4E that I most disliked are going to be preserved. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 21:42:38
So 5e will be what 4e should have been? Great!
I knew there was a slew of really good ideas in it - they just got buried under all the bad (hype and otherwise).
Looking forward to buying these rules when they come out (I haven't bothered with the playtest materials in a LONG time). |
| Diffan |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 20:42:18
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
I've been playing a playtest campaign for the last year. We've had about 30 sessions and have been slowly folding in the revised rules as they come out. I think we've enjoyed it.
Overall, I'd say that it's a lot closer to 3.X than to 4E, sprinkled with a smattering of other edition inspiration and a handful of the better ideas from 4E.
Yea, we came to that same conclusion about it being a lot closer to v3.5 with some other...elements of other editions. I still only see one or two ideas from 4E that have been working but I can only hope for more options as the playtest rolls on or once they start producing the actual game. If I can have a lite-4E with lower numbers, faster combat, and fun options that still provide players with a healthy amount of tools and features then it'll be a win-win in my book.
Have you added in anything different or houseruled stuff into the playtest so far Eytan? I'm looking for other elements to add as well as homebrew classes that work well with this system. I have a friend working on a Factotum and I'm currently working on an Assassin that functions similiar to the 4E shadow-based one with elements of the Swordsage plus Shadow Hand maneuvers. |
| EytanBernstein |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 19:24:58
I've been playing a playtest campaign for the last year. We've had about 30 sessions and have been slowly folding in the revised rules as they come out. I think we've enjoyed it.
Overall, I'd say that it's a lot closer to 3.X than to 4E, sprinkled with a smattering of other edition inspiration and a handful of the better ideas from 4E. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 00:02:06
Well it's been almost a full year since they announced the Playtest and have rolled out approx 7 different versions of the base game including several adventures, one specifically for the Forgotten Realms.
Has anyone tried playtesting it? What was your experience overall? What packet did you test and are you changing packets as they roll out?
I ask just to get a feeling of the overall mood of the community. For myself, I playtested each packet at least once. The very first one lasted approx 1 hour in which we quickly reverted back to our 4E game. It was a lot of things such as pre-generated characters, being unfamiliar with the rules, and general dislike of the options provided. As the packets got more expansive and we started getting rules on building PCs, it's gotten a bit better though our last adventure ended up being a TPK after only the 3rd encounter (with Kobolds funny enough).
Currently I'm starting to mix/match other systems from v3.5 (Wounds/Vitality over HP being one and an inclusion of Utiilty powers for non-magical classes from 4E) to test it's flexability as a modular system. The combat does go fast, which is nice and the numbers don't seem to sky-rocket like they did in v3.5 and 4E (again, which is nice). The classes, however, tend to be a bit boring. The Fighter, for example, gets two uses of his Expertise Die at 1st level that act similiar to Encounter Powers (with a recharge = your action to recover) and the effects are rather.....bland. I'm hoping for a revision of the Fighter that worked like a few packets ago in that he can mix and match maneuvers on a specific Expertise Die that refreshes every round.
|
| Hawkins |
Posted - 22 Jun 2012 : 04:12:42
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
While I admire Pathfinder, even like it a great deal...it isn't a "new" game at all. It is the intellectual property of another company that gave permission for others to tweak their I.P. Pathfinder is strictly 3.x/tweaked. Now, how they handle BUSINESS is a much clearer picture. They have an awesome business model...THAT is what I would say they invented...but I refuse to give them credit for the Pathfinder game...they didn't create it. Well, I dunno...if they get many more of WotC's old employees...I guess they could say "we" as individuals made it! lol
That, more or less, is what I was trying to say. Thanks for paring it down. =D |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 22 Jun 2012 : 00:59:03
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
You can't compare the two. Paizo had a running start with an established game system.
And WotC had a running start with the brand name and the fact that they'd inherited the legacy of having the world's first and most popular roleplaying game. D&D was in print for more than 30 years when Paizo decided to do their own thing -- 30 years is one hell of a running start. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 22 Jun 2012 : 00:57:00
While I admire Pathfinder, even like it a great deal...it isn't a "new" game at all. It is the intellectual property of another company that gave permission for others to tweak their I.P. Pathfinder is strictly 3.x/tweaked. Now, how they handle BUSINESS is a much clearer picture. They have an awesome business model...THAT is what I would say they invented...but I refuse to give them credit for the Pathfinder game...they didn't create it. Well, I dunno...if they get many more of WotC's old employees...I guess they could say "we" as individuals made it! lol |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 22 Jun 2012 : 00:09:34
No, I think that it is fair to compare them. D&D had the title world's most popular roleplaying game and 4e, while bringing in new blood, flubbed it and lost the title. If they want that title again, WotC does need to take some cues from Paizo and how they handled Pathfinder.
I was more talking about the openness of the playtest, and then got pulled into a rant about how WotC has fallen short. WotC seems to be holding their cards close to their chest, and I really think they need to be more open with their customers about what is going on. Why premade characters instead of a list of racial abilities for each race, 1st level stats for each class, backgrounds, and weapons separate so you can mix and match and "playtest" combos of such things. Maybe tell us how far along the process they are and an expected release date. I think that part of what made 4e not as successful as 3.x or Pathfinder is that they tried to keep to much proprietary (rules wise, I understand that things like illithid, githyanki, and beholder are copy written because they are iconic of D&D). And I think that the very openness of 3.x and Pathfinder are their strength.
On the note about $10 digital versions, I am very serious that they need to see that people do not expect that they should have to pay so much for a digital version because by its very nature it feels less permanent. Many people decried Paizo for making the digital versions $10, but it has been a booming success.
When you are the biggest dog, other dogs look to you for direction. When you feed growth serum to one of the little dogs and he becomes the biggest dog, then you look to him for direction. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 21 Jun 2012 : 23:15:25
You can't compare the two. Paizo had a running start with an established game system. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 21 Jun 2012 : 21:27:25
I really think that WotC needs to look more closely at what caused Pathfinder's success. Making people sign an NDA even to just look at the playtest seems a bit over-controlling to me. Paizo took 2 years of truly open playtest data before they had what resulted in the final product. All of their PDF versions cost only $10. Also, they scaled back production to three major (hardback, 260 pages) products a year, instead of the mess of 160 page splat books that we got during the latter years of 3.x. And finally (though I know that this is partially because Pathfinder was designed under the OGL), everything, all of the non-setting specific material, is open game license (OGL, i.e. free to take and do with as you please). And not only is it OGL, all of the major books are available for free on their website. Beyond the three Core Rulebooks (PH, DMG, & MM), Deities & Demigods, the XPH, and the ELH, nothing was OGL under the 3.x reign of WotC. And the best website to use as a tool for these resources (d20SRD.org) was not even created by WotC. This created a lot of material that there was no 3rd party support for, and therefore niche publishers were not able to really find a foothold (i.e. like Dreamscarred Press with Psionics). What if the rules beyond the core rules for 3e (and all the rules for 4e) had truly been free? I think that the result may have been a community of customers like what Pathfinder enjoys. So, while I applaud WotC for their open playtest of D&D Next, I am still waiting to see if they pick up on any of the other aspects of what has made Pathfinder the leading tabletop RPG for the past year and a half. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 21 Jun 2012 : 19:08:27
4e game is fun for me.
I don't care for "4e Realms"...but I don't have to use it. I CAN use some of the awesome ideas that came with/after the S.P.; so essentially I've sort of come around here at the tail end of it to realize that the spellplague wasn't the absolute disaster I felt it was.
I mean, essentially, "My Realms" (meaning 1e and 2e without the Time of Troubles) is now left alone for me to do with as I wish. |
| Stonwulfe |
Posted - 21 Jun 2012 : 18:48:00
Thus far I like the 5e Playtest, and have found nothing wrong with it. Where I was going with my tangent is that the FR is by far the broadest, most developed campaign setting and game world. It's also the only one relevant to my own Dungeon Mastering and that of many gamers I know, including those who use Pathfinder.
With 4e Realms I really just want to close my eyes and hum "la di dah" and make like it was Highlander 2; forget it ever happened. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 21 Jun 2012 : 18:42:02
Some interesting comments here.
WotC does an open playtest: They ripped off someone else
WotC doesn't do an open playtest: Those bastards
People need to look objectively at each situation, and then look internally. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 21 Jun 2012 : 06:55:50
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
I don't have any impression from anywhere that Greenwood has any input on the 5e rules or playtest.
Eltheron, the recent Book Wyrms: Elminster and the Story of the Forgotten Realms article by James Wyatt is what people are referring too.
On topic: participated in a 5E playtest at a friend's house over the weekend. I liked the mobility options available to all (players and monsters) though it seemed way to easy for the lead PC to get killed to death (which happened with that same DM, running the rules for another group) if a bunch of monsters can all move in, attack and move away.
I also liked the new rules for a brief rest (not sure if that's the right term). |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 21 Jun 2012 : 04:08:32
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
Is everyone talking about the same thing?
I don't have any impression from anywhere that Greenwood has any input on the 5e rules or playtest. Maybe that's possible, but I'd doubt it.
If you mean that they're "listening to Ed" because of his upcoming Elminster's Realms, I think it's way, way early to say that. WotC says all sorts of things, and frankly I need to see hard proof before I get my hopes up for anything they say they'll do.
Probably not. WotC is listening to Ed on the 5E Realms... |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 21 Jun 2012 : 02:28:19
Ask Ed, and I certainly can't speak for him, although I personally suspect he's largely uninvolved with the "mechanical" aspects and constantly kept busy tending the Realms and his other story/setting/narrative work. "D&D 5E" is probably just not Ed's thing - and besides, he's admitted his 2E preferences before, he can be prolific with writing game rules but never within a setting-vacuum. |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 21 Jun 2012 : 02:01:51
Is everyone talking about the same thing?
I don't have any impression from anywhere that Greenwood has any input on the 5e rules or playtest. Maybe that's possible, but I'd doubt it.
If you mean that they're "listening to Ed" because of his upcoming Elminster's Realms, I think it's way, way early to say that. WotC says all sorts of things, and frankly I need to see hard proof before I get my hopes up for anything they say they'll do.
|
| Brimstone |
Posted - 21 Jun 2012 : 01:23:13
quote:
Originally posted by Stonwulfe
What lingers for me is the principle. They didn't just break the world. That will heal. What pisses me off is that they stopped listening to Ed.
Good thing that WotC started listening to him again. We shall see how much they listen, but at least they are listening again... |
| Stonwulfe |
Posted - 21 Jun 2012 : 00:50:26
I don't comment on here much of late. I think my last serious post to the boards was in early 2009 when I was reviewing the 4e Core Books. I lost drive and commitment half-way through that process, and I would like to expand on that here as it is relevant to this thread.
I am a long-time gamer, like many of you here. I can trade Realmslore with the best of 'em, but my résumé isn't key here. I grew up with a computer, and with D&D, and I've gamed in both worlds quite heavily.
When I started to review 4e after being a seriously invested 3/3.5e I was determined, nay committed to resisting the compulsion to go the route of so many veterans I had observed before.
The genuine urge to throw up my hands and say, "Screw you guys, I'm going home" nearly overtook me on several occasions. It happened because I saw 4e's weaknesses, what I perceived as their attempts to secure an expansion on their base of loyal subscribers, and because they were making changes I then considered tantamount to dropping a steaming coiler on the altar of the Sistine Chapel and then rubbing it on the walls. 4e was in many ways WotC's Windows Vista.
This is why I refrained from a fecal-dismissive tirade on the future of WotC. Because for all that Windows Vista is (and 4e is), it got some things right. Some core issues that were in desperate need of review that hadn't been ever considered because... well... it was canon. That's really the biggest thing that bothered me about 4e; they messed with canon - sometimes, that something has become sacrosanct is precisely the reason you should screw with it.
[I suggest reading Naked Lunch and not messing with the hopes of millions of roleplayers, but hey, I'm not in charge.]
What WotC got right with 4e boils down to four key elements:
- They organized their core rulebooks to flow through the character creation process from the front to the back of the book.
- They addressed the problem of individual role within a party and the issue of healing shortages from a structural level.
- They reached out to computer gamers of younger generations, those who were familiar with Everquest and World of Warcraft, and said we have something they don't.
- They broke expectations by introducing significant, world-changing elements to their strongest brand.
Say what you will about the aftermath of the latter two decisions. Yes, I realize I'm being quite specific in my fallacy of intent on the part of WotC (that the change was motivated by a desire to capture PC gamers) but the shoe fits. You can also say what you will about the kneejerk reaction to 4e and the move to further implementations of 3.5e such as Pathfinder. Pathfinder's a fine system, but it gives into that aforementioned loyalist/old-guard attitude.
I believe that the core value behind the structural changes, the outreach to gamers, and the murder of Mystra were all very much-needed. Like breaking a femur, this hurt like a sonova. It was unpleasant, people cringe just thinking about it, and you can get hopping mad about the fact that it happened. But like breaking a femur, if you don't die of sepsis or blood clot or some other Gods-awful predicament, you heal stronger. The bone becomes more resilient. You end up with a stronger structure.
WotC will recover because the fans forget, like breaking a bone the nearness of it fades in the mind. But they may not recover completely, and the brand will have scars, because they didn't just give us a clean break - they broke the f'n world and then, when it was bleeding, they giggled madly as they ran amok in its entrails. Why stop at changing the world and killing a god, let's change the planes!
What lingers for me is the principle. They didn't just break the world. That will heal. What pisses me off is that they stopped listening to Ed.
For that, I will be very, VERY vocal and specific in my play-test feedback and in my review of their materials.
Only if they start to listen, think, and respond to their fans will they heal what they've done and recover lost market share. If only then. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 28 May 2012 : 21:09:26
I certainly won't complain against WotC for doing the right thing, even if Paizo did it first. I also find it ironic to blame WotC for taking something from Paizo, when Paizo just bought 95% of the mechanics with which they built their game from WotC.
Let's not start about discussing what d&d did first before being copied by others... |
| Tasker Daze |
Posted - 20 May 2012 : 16:40:39
I didn't say D&D was copying from Pathfinder. I said WotC was copying from Piazo.
WotC has never done a public playtest before, despite releaseing many editions of D&D. WotC rarely asks for input on anything and theyve never done it in such a large scale -- until now, when they are second to someone who did the same thing. WotC is copying Piazo's tactics because Piazo showed it works. After earning plnty of bad feelings from players, WotC is trying to look good by doing the same thing that got Piazo a lot of good attention. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 20 May 2012 : 08:36:29
The dragon eats its own tail. D&D now inspired by things several orders removed from other things originally inspired by D&D.
It's incorrect to say that D&D is copying from Pathfinder, just as it's incorrect to say D&D elves and wizards and orcs are copied from Tolkien and Rowling and Blizzard. It's a genre, with D&D traditionally cresting the vanguard. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 20 May 2012 : 06:19:20
quote:
Originally posted by Tasker Daze
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
So then, by that logic, you couldn't really applaud Paizo's whole Pathfinder game because it's just reflavored, homebrewed v3.5 (something WotC created). It's a better example of copying than WotC running a public Playtest IMO.
PS. just for the record, I think Pathfinder is a good, fun, and exciting addition to what WotC did with v3.5.
Not even close to the same thing. WotC is doing something unpresedented for them, and only doing it because they're losing the company that did it first.
So it's not because they might actually be interested in what gamers have to say? Or because they're excited to see how people will react to a (possibly) very modual RPG with the lable D&D? And it couldn't have anything to do with them wanting to extend an olive branch to people as a good faith token? Nope, they're just doing it because it's what Paizo did. That has to be the only reason  .
And how, exactly, isn't Paizo making a ton of money off of the OGL not "copying"? Don't get me wrong, I think their rules are better than the original OGL but....c'mon it's just a different flavor with tweaks on the same chassis. Really, the famework is already there and waiting. All Paizo did was see that the mechanics weren't done, added some spit-shine and resold it to the fans. But it wasn't WotC so it was ok. People even expressively ignored the famed Monte Cook's article on how the changes from 3E to v3.5 weren't needed or welcomed because it was pretty much what Pathfinder did. |
|
|
