| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
 Posted - 01 Nov 2011 : 19:32:15
|
| I'm also recall some of the same issues in 2E, like two rather different proficiencies for weightless combat, in Spelljammer, or the never-described spells that were mentioned a few times in the Adventures in Arcane Space boxed set. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
 |
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31727 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2011 : 00:43:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm also recall some of the same issues in 2E, like two rather different proficiencies for weightless combat, in Spelljammer, or the never-described spells that were mentioned a few times in the Adventures in Arcane Space boxed set.
RAVENLOFT was often notorious for that as well. I recall several instances of never-described spells and, even, some characters.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2011 : 03:52:50
|
And lets not forget the two extremely similar (even in name: Voadkyn & Volodni) groups of Wood Giants in FR, with completely different histories. Numerous races of giants is redundancy (storm/cloud, mountain/hill, etc), but acceptable; two variations of a specific type of giant within one setting is intolerable. Especially something as lame as Wood Giants (did ANYONE ever use them?).
And I am not even talking about Forest giants or Jungle giants, which are other variants. We also had both Sand and Desert Giants.
And those one-eyed, one-legged, one-armed hopping monsters? In every Torillian setting they had a different name and write-up (yet all the same creature). And don't even get me started on the number of Goblin sub-species... almost as bad as the Elves. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2011 : 13:53:00
|
I never thought diversity was a bad thing and more options are always better than less IMO. The Goliath, for example, was a good way for people to play a "Giant" character and still be relatively balanced in a normal party (they only had a +1 LA) and I thought they were more interesting than the giants found in the Monster Manual and later supplements.
Though one can incorporate all or none of these creatures or aspects into the game as they see fit. 5 different forms of Goblins may exists to provide DMs with a multitude of creature representations for various campaigns. Want to fight goblins? Want a desert themed campaign? Here's some desert-based Goblins! I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing though I can understand the ire of them getting attention in Setting books where the info could be better used on something more valuable (lore-wise).
....
Getting back to Monte working on a possible 5E, let me ask you guys a few questions: What's the most important aspect in a new Player's Handbook class-wise? More specifically if they they do make a PHB 5E, what classes would be a deal breaker for you to have or not have if say....you were only allowed 8 classes? Whats iconic to D&D in these terms? I ask because I was involved in a discussion about the "Core" aspects of a game and that they should showcase what a system is capable of. 4E, for example, didn't have druids, barbarians, bards, sorcerers, or monks in their PHB 1 and that made a lot of people mad. I believe that the classes they did add were Iconic enougth to give people a good idea on what the system could do. Additional classes would come later, but those presented were OK by me.
For 5E's (8 classes) I'd like to see:
Fighter
Mage
Rogue
Cleric
Druid
Paladin
Ranger
+1 whatever class
Your thoughts? |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2011 : 15:21:38
|
I'd go with classless (no jokes, please ), but then everyone would complain it's not D&D.
How about four classes (perhaps 5, but I'd roll psionics into another), based on the four different roles from 4e? Then you can use career paths to simulate each class. Kinda like having a profession, and then specializing.
D&D started with just four classes, so its both simple and elegant, and they can pile-on all the paths they want later (providing at least 2 choices for each role in the PHB - keep the choices balanced, which they didn't do in the 4e PHB). If they want to provide more of one the then the others, that's fine, but do that in supplements; the initial release should have more then one path for each role. Give them the four basics - Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, & Mage - and then four alternates. That should be enough.
Add multi-classing in the PHB2, I think... maybe. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2011 : 16:06:31
|
Me, I want all the classes that were in the 2E PHB to be in the first PHB of any flavor of D&D. I grew up in 2E, and I tend to think in terms of that ruleset. To, fighter, thief, paladin, cleric, druid, bard, wizard (and sorcerer), etc -- those are your base classes, and thus those need to be in the first PHB. I object, most strenuously, to any separation of the base classes that forces me to have at least one PHB other than the 1st one, if I want to play one of those base classes.
Ditto for races.
I do realize that that is not the best way to sell books -- but at the same time, I think the need to sell MOAR BOOKS! needs to be balanced by giving customers what they need in the first book. If the first PHB does not give me the essential material for playing one of the base classes, then I'm not buying that book. So rather than selling me two books, I'll simply go for another ruleset that allows me do it with one.
Now for non-base classes, races, and PrC/kits/whatever, multiple books is fine. The 1st PHB needs to tell me how to play a gnomish bard, but having to buy a second or even third book to play my werebuffalo Kewl Rifledancer is fine. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2011 : 17:02:24
|
You know, I just don't know if I need or really even want another rule set. At some point, after investing in AD&D, 2E, 3E, 3.5E, MERP/Rolemaster, etc., I'm totally unconvinced that yet another rules package will make D&D "better" or more fun in any way.
I think what we really need at this point is content that is editionless. Break the mold of re-publishing the same exact thing over and over, and fully concentrate on pure content that can be used in any system you choose. I just don't need another rules version of the thief.
Granted, I understand fully that "core books" are the bread and butter for sales at any game company. And new editions do serve to bring in fresh players to the game. But personally, do -I- really need another version to have fun? Not really.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 02 Nov 2011 17:04:09 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2011 : 17:27:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Me, I want all the classes that were in the 2E PHB to be in the first PHB of any flavor of D&D. I grew up in 2E, and I tend to think in terms of that ruleset. To, fighter, thief, paladin, cleric, druid, bard, wizard (and sorcerer), etc -- those are your base classes, and thus those need to be in the first PHB. I object, most strenuously, to any separation of the base classes that forces me to have at least one PHB other than the 1st one, if I want to play one of those base classes.
I no longer have any of those books - what were all the class choices in the 2e PHB?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Now for non-base classes, races, and PrC/kits/whatever, multiple books is fine. The 1st PHB needs to tell me how to play a gnomish bard, but having to buy a second or even third book to play my werebuffalo Kewl Rifledancer is fine.
I'm sorry, but if the Werebuffalo Kewl Rifledancer isn't in the core book, then I won't buy it. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2011 : 17:41:43
|
@ MT: Ya know, I've really thought hard about a "Classless" system and how it would effect D&D. Of course other system have tried and I guess it works, thought I've never ventured out of the d20/2E style so I have no experience with it. I could see a loose framework such as generic titles: Mage, Priest, Hunter, Warrior. Within that generic frame character specialize such as Mages becoming sorcerers, wizard, warlocks, bladesingers or Priests becoming paladins or invokers or Fighers being Barbarians, Knights, Samurai and have a specialized "kit" for that specific style.
More inline with what we have currently with 4E is something I call Sourceless 4E which has you pick a class and your instantly granted powers associated with that Source. So a wizard could choose Swordmage powers, Fighter can choose Ranger powers, Paladins can choose Invoker powers yet the class features and stuff remain the same. It broadens the role-based system yet keeps things at least minimally balanced.
Though you said "keep the choices balanced, which they didn't do in the 4e PHB" which I find very odd as 4E is considered one of the most balanced editions of the game. I'm wondering why you feel this way or is it more a balance issue within each class such as people only playing Charisma-based Paladins, Orb-using Wizards, or Two-Weapon Fighting Rangers as the other "build" is less optimial?
@ Wooly: I see what your saying and for you, those are defining elements that start a game. I've never been partial to Gnomes or Bards so those are aspects I'm perfectly fine waiting for. Of course, everyone's perspective and interests are going to vary. The one thing I've seen is the big 4 (Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Rogue) as the staple points in the game. Branching from there is a matter of opinion, which points me back to a more frame-work system than a strong class-based system. Hopefully 5E, if and when it's produced, will produce a product where the powers held within aren't so BIG and COLORFUL to take up all that page space. I'd have rather liked to see the powes in 4E "look" more like the spells and manevuers of 3E than what we got. Oh well.
@ Therise: I hear ya, which is what drives me to find new and interesting ways of tweaking existing editions and making something new. Much like how E6/E8 works for v3.5/PF or the Sourceless 4E works for that edition. Changing things within the framework of a specific edition keeps that edition alive and running with an extended shelf-life.
You also mentioned lore and info that's fit for all editions of D&D and that's pretty cool, but don't we already have a lot of that? I mean, conversions aside would you like to see adventures that deal more with story than hard-core mechanics? For an example, an adventure could be a short dungeon crawl with X, Y, Z monsters and their reasons for being there. Footnotes could give you suggestions on many editions of the game to plug into the adventures. Something like a Spider described generically could suggest a Hook Spider from v3.5 Monster Manual 3 or a Phase Spide from 4E and so forth depending on what edition your playing. The adventure doesn't necessarily change but the monster might and each one will be a little different, but the overall plot is the same. |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2011 : 18:00:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
@ Therise: I hear ya, which is what drives me to find new and interesting ways of tweaking existing editions and making something new. Much like how E6/E8 works for v3.5/PF or the Sourceless 4E works for that edition. Changing things within the framework of a specific edition keeps that edition alive and running with an extended shelf-life.
You also mentioned lore and info that's fit for all editions of D&D and that's pretty cool, but don't we already have a lot of that? I mean, conversions aside would you like to see adventures that deal more with story than hard-core mechanics? For an example, an adventure could be a short dungeon crawl with X, Y, Z monsters and their reasons for being there. Footnotes could give you suggestions on many editions of the game to plug into the adventures. Something like a Spider described generically could suggest a Hook Spider from v3.5 Monster Manual 3 or a Phase Spide from 4E and so forth depending on what edition your playing. The adventure doesn't necessarily change but the monster might and each one will be a little different, but the overall plot is the same.
We do have quite a bit of lore for the Realms, that's true. And certainly a lot of things that can be borrowed from other settings and games as well.
But at the same time, a great deal of Realmslore has simply been updated from ruleset to ruleset. 3E was the worst offender for this, I think, just taking a lot of the 2E material and cutting some parts out and adding a paragraph or two of new stuff. Then putting it into a hardback and re-selling it. How many times do I need to see Cormyr in another edition? I'd like to see richer development of areas that we've been asking about for (going on) 20+ years.
I really wanted to see Thay in rich detail, before 4E. I wanted deep history on the Witches and Warriors of Rashemen. Plenty of the Underdark hasn't been seen, really, except for updates on Menzoberranzan. Kara-Tur and Zakhara: WANT!
And absolutely I'd love to see more adventures (campaigns really) that concentrate on story. Back when Age of Worms came out in printed Dragon, with the Realmsy adaptations by Eric Boyd, that was some seriously good stuff! I like the whole idea of campaign settings set in a region, like the new Neverwinter guide. Things like that would be highly preferred in my book. 
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 02 Nov 2011 18:01:56 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2011 : 18:18:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Me, I want all the classes that were in the 2E PHB to be in the first PHB of any flavor of D&D. I grew up in 2E, and I tend to think in terms of that ruleset. To, fighter, thief, paladin, cleric, druid, bard, wizard (and sorcerer), etc -- those are your base classes, and thus those need to be in the first PHB. I object, most strenuously, to any separation of the base classes that forces me to have at least one PHB other than the 1st one, if I want to play one of those base classes.
I no longer have any of those books - what were all the class choices in the 2e PHB?
Fighter, paladin, ranger, thief, bard, mage, specialist mage (I think; I've not got the files handy), priest, druid. Going all from memory, of course.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Now for non-base classes, races, and PrC/kits/whatever, multiple books is fine. The 1st PHB needs to tell me how to play a gnomish bard, but having to buy a second or even third book to play my werebuffalo Kewl Rifledancer is fine.
I'm sorry, but if the Werebuffalo Kewl Rifledancer isn't in the core book, then I won't buy it.
Heh. It was one of the most ridiculous-sounding things I could come up with. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2011 : 18:22:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
@ Wooly: I see what your saying and for you, those are defining elements that start a game. I've never been partial to Gnomes or Bards so those are aspects I'm perfectly fine waiting for. Of course, everyone's perspective and interests are going to vary. The one thing I've seen is the big 4 (Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Rogue) as the staple points in the game. Branching from there is a matter of opinion, which points me back to a more frame-work system than a strong class-based system. Hopefully 5E, if and when it's produced, will produce a product where the powers held within aren't so BIG and COLORFUL to take up all that page space. I'd have rather liked to see the powes in 4E "look" more like the spells and manevuers of 3E than what we got. Oh well.
I personally don't want to play a gnome or a bard... But I want the option in the main PHB. I think of gnomes as one of the main races, and I think of bards as one of the main classes -- so that should all be in the main book. I believe 4E put both gnomes and bards into the PHB2, instead of the PHB1, and I don't think this is justified by anything other than sales.
As I said, I favor giving the customer one book for the essentials, not spreading it across multiple ones. I recognize that my idea of essentials may not match that of others, but those particular races and classes were core across two editions, and that's enough for me. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 02 Nov 2011 18:25:08 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2011 : 19:17:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
@ MT: Though you said "keep the choices balanced, which they didn't do in the 4e PHB" which I find very odd as 4E is considered one of the most balanced editions of the game. I'm wondering why you feel this way or is it more a balance issue within each class such as people only playing Charisma-based Paladins, Orb-using Wizards, or Two-Weapon Fighting Rangers as the other "build" is less optimial?
What I mean is that in the 4e players handbook they gave us a new concept called 'roles', and then gave us four roles (which coincidentally coincides with the original four classes of the game). Then they proceeded to give us 2 classes for two of the roles, 3 classes for another, and only one class for the fourth role (leaving absolutely NO choice in the PHB in regards to class if you wanted that role).
That's what I meant by 'balanced' - not the system, the damn book. It felt lopsided to me.
My idea is to move forward with 4e (YES, I did just say that), but dial it back a notch - it was too many changes all at once. I've been around a long time, and there really is such a thing as "ahead of its time" (the Amiga, Betamax, etc). Change the roles from Defender, Leader, Controller, and Striker to Fighter, Leader, Mage, & Rogue. Ergo, the only one that differs from the original 4 is Leader (can't be helped - cleric is too specific).
Then you could have choices in the 5ePHB1 of two paths each. I would also switch it up a little - I wasn't too happy with the role assignments in 4e (the powers fit, but I'd change the names).
For instance, for Fighters you could choose either the Warrior (barbarian) or Soldier (professional fighter) paths. No more 'Defender' - that wouldn't appeal to me if I were 12-14... sounds like a babysitter. Those are the kinds of changes I am talking about. The system can stand (with some tweaking), but the terminology needs to be better thought-out.
Where they went wrong...
Also, a more logical approach to monsters, like what Paizo did. Monsters are dynamic, living (in most cases) creatures, and we need to know more about them then their stats - this was probably 4e's greatest mistake. The monster books were always the most popular splats, and they turned all that interesting goodness into a math book. I don't want 47 races of giants, I want one race with descriptions of all the offshoots (after all, humans vary greatly, but we are one race, at least in D&D). They seem to be heading in that direction with the later MM's in 3.5, which I thought was the influence of 4e (then in-progress). Apparently, like so many other things, they took a perfectly good idea and over-worked it. Every single monster doesn't have to be a race unto itself - connect them to other, similar creatures and make the world's ecology more believable. I loved the groupings of creatures in those later MM's.
In other words, The Sons of Gruumsh shouldn't have been an adventure, it should have been Goblinoid sourcebook!
Imagine how much better D&D and FR would be if D&D was built entirely around ONE setting - and that setting should be their flagship, The Forgotten Realms. Forget the generic approach to the rules - it isn't working. AD&D was designed completely with GH in mind, and thats how you get a cohesive game. Every splat, including racial ones, could include history. The core race books were useless in this regard, because they weren't connected to any particular setting. All that great fluff, and they left it floating in the ether.
Don't try to do a hundred things mediocre, just do one thing really, REALLY well. Give us a world and a system that are married to each other, and watch the folks come back in droves.
And then there is Eberron... hmmm.... leave it in 4th, for now? Not sure what to do there. Lots of stuff from Greyhawk and Mystara can be used in an FR reboot (FR got loads from them anyway), but Eberron's flavor is just too different. I just hate the idea of 'core' and setting-specific books - something 4e tried to avoid but fell right into anyway. Publishing more then one setting is a major pitfall for them in designing 5e. Wonder how Monte will handle it? |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 03 Nov 2011 19:10:19 |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 03 Nov 2011 : 08:47:04
|
I agree about the classes, warrior, leader (or priest), rogue and mage. Then make all other classes their subclasses, tough some would be in between, e.g. paladin warrior or priest, ranger rogue or warrior, druid mage or priest (make the druid closer to the historical druid).
FR had to be the default setting of 3e, reading about Pelor or something in every core book was quite annoying. |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 03 Nov 2011 : 19:08:59
|
| I wrote a piece for Critical-Hits.com back in 2009 on the subject of where roles came from, and how the concept is rooted in origins of D&D. |
Edited by - Matt James on 03 Nov 2011 19:09:23 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 03 Nov 2011 : 19:46:00
|
I got that Matt, and agree with it. I like that they went back to basics and tried to modernize the original game, rather then use 3e as a starting point.
I just think they over-did it. I am sure at some point during the design phase (what was it it 3 years? 5?) they probably had it perfect, where it still felt like D&D, but streamlined it enough to appeal to new players and old alike. I feel they then 'over-designed', and kept going past the sweet spot. No way of knowing, really, but just how I feel after reading those 2... ummm... not even sure what they were. Those pre-release 'making of 4e' books. Nearly everything they said they were working towards I agreed with, but then when I saw 4e, I felt it fell a bit flat.
The concept of Roles was great, but they should have used older terms for them - they just sound too CRPG to most folks. From those four they could have used paths to generate every other class, and with multi-classing they could have add yet-another dimension (something that should be in PHB2 - was that where 4e had it?) That would be duel-role, which is great when dealing with smaller parties. (for instance, a Paladin is a great defender, but can double as a healer in a pinch).
I am currently re-reading the 4e rules, which I only perused before. This time out I am really taking them apart mentally, and I have to say I still feel it was over-designed. There is some really great ideas in there, and then they get all washed-out. I can't even put my finger on precisely what is wrong, which tells me it isn't actually the system itself. I am even enjoying the fluffy bits (remember, I am talking about the rules right now, NOT FR) - its when I get to the crunchy parts that I feel this itch I can't quite scratch.
Re-naming stuff like the roles I think is just the tip of the iceberg - I haven't even gotten to the magic yet. Once again, I hope Monte can backwards-engineer 4e and make it the system it should have been. There was a LOT of a hostility over the multitude of changes, and especially where FR was concerned, and I think many of us may have unfairly judged 4e because of that anger. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 03 Nov 2011 19:48:13 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 04 Nov 2011 : 18:30:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I just think they over-did it. I am sure at some point during the design phase (what was it it 3 years? 5?) they probably had it perfect, where it still felt like D&D, but streamlined it enough to appeal to new players and old alike. I feel they then 'over-designed', and kept going past the sweet spot. No way of knowing, really, but just how I feel after reading those 2... ummm... not even sure what they were. Those pre-release 'making of 4e' books. Nearly everything they said they were working towards I agreed with, but then when I saw 4e, I felt it fell a bit flat.
I wish they would've come out with "Essentials" first, putting those options as a starting point. This, I feel, would've been a less drastic change than what we say with the Players Handbook.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The concept of Roles was great, but they should have used older terms for them - they just sound too CRPG to most folks. From those four they could have used paths to generate every other class, and with multi-classing they could have add yet-another dimension (something that should be in PHB2 - was that where 4e had it?) That would be duel-role, which is great when dealing with smaller parties. (for instance, a Paladin is a great defender, but can double as a healer in a pinch).
I agree to a point. The idea of roles is both good and bad depending on how you like to play the game. Roles were designed to help give people an idea where your character would "shine" and thus perfom a specific function in the party. Others felt this was too constricting since a Fighter was designed to defend and not deal LOADS of DPR compared to "striker" classes. Personally, I find it easier to fill a role with something mechanically balanced and call it whatever I darn well please instead of basing what I want to do with a specific "class" name.
As for the dual-role, I think you mean Hybrid classes which came out in the Player's Handbook 3. They're handy and fun, no doubt, but I don't think the programming (ie. Character Builder) was ready for it and they have a penchant for creating things with the hopes that it'll be CB-friendly within a very short time of their debut. I have a Hybrid Elven Ranger|Seeker and he's pretty fun archer character to play.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I am currently re-reading the 4e rules, which I only perused before. This time out I am really taking them apart mentally, and I have to say I still feel it was over-designed. There is some really great ideas in there, and then they get all washed-out. I can't even put my finger on precisely what is wrong, which tells me it isn't actually the system itself. I am even enjoying the fluffy bits (remember, I am talking about the rules right now, NOT FR) - its when I get to the crunchy parts that I feel this itch I can't quite scratch.
Re-naming stuff like the roles I think is just the tip of the iceberg - I haven't even gotten to the magic yet. Once again, I hope Monte can backwards-engineer 4e and make it the system it should have been. There was a LOT of a hostility over the multitude of changes, and especially where FR was concerned, and I think many of us may have unfairly judged 4e because of that anger.
Agreed. Had they not touched FR except for a few bits, (gotta get those Eladrin in there somewhere) left the timeline alone, left Mystra to her own devices, and forgot the Spellplague I think 4E would've had a lot more positive reviews with diehard-FR fans. As for the basic rules, I'm all ears when it comes to discusing them and will help any way I can and would even help tweak things to make them better.
One idea I've been toying with is the separation of powers from classes and into a more Generic sub-system like that of their sources. For example, Fighters are based on the Martial power-source yet they're confined to just their own classe's powers, not ALL martial powers. So how bad would it be to allow them Ranger, Rogue, or Warlord powers in a limited way? Or does blur the differences of the classes too much? |
Edited by - Diffan on 04 Nov 2011 18:33:45 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 04 Nov 2011 : 19:24:49
|
I, personally, have never thought of a character in terms of striker/defender/whatever. And I've played WoW, I still play LotRO, and I'm obviously into D&D.
Personally, I think that using those terms, and speaking of classes as being part of specific roles, emphasizes what I perceive as the MMO-like nature of 4E. That's not what I want from a PnP game.
Even if the Realms had been left untouched by the advent of 4E, I'd still not like the ruleset. I've read enough about it to know that it's not for me. I'm happy to stick with Pathfinder, because in my opinion, 3.x was the best version of D&D released.
I hope 5E is more like 3.x instead of being like 4E. I think if they went back towards 3.x WotC could reclaim some of the market it lost to Pathfinder.
Note: I'm not trying to make this another chapter in the edition wars, and I'll not discuss my opinions with any that seem intent on carrying on that battle. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 04 Nov 2011 19:26:37 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 04 Nov 2011 : 21:45:53
|
I don't think there is a war anymore. Hard feelings still, but a truce has been called. We here are FR fans, so we CAN'T untangle ourselves from D&D, no matter how hard we try (in our gaming, yes, but not in this forum). Its like saying I love Corvettes but I hate Chevy cars (which is actually true in my case). If you are a fan of one, you have to just deal with the other and get over it.
Anyhow, that's where I am at now, personally.
@Wooly & Diffan: I think we are doing the "glass is half full/half empty" argument now. We can (nearly) all agree that 4e perhaps went a bit too far, and some hybrid between 4e and 3e may have been better received (as Diffan pointed out with Essentials).
As for me, I am fine with the Spellplague. I still think it is an ingenious device for every single DM to customize his FR setting to his own needs. Mystra-smystra, who cares? We only cry over her death because it snow-balled into everything else. 5e should start the day after the Spellplague - that's when the setting really shines. NO absolutes, at all. Everything is on the table.
You take what you like from both old and new, and dump the rest. Everyone is a winner. Mortals don't know what really happened - they only suspect that Mystra died. Leave it up to individual DMs what happened - but pepper us with loads and loads of rumors - those are just fuel (plot hooks) for our creative juices.
All your favorite NPCs from 3e could still be alive, or dead, or something else altogether. Same with the settlements and other locales. That's one thing 4e got right - just tell us what major things happened, and leave the small places for us to decide. We can take all that juicy 1e/2e/3e goodness and still use it, as we see fit. The problem with the century time-jump (a BIG mistake IMHO) was that it annihilated that old lore, instead of building upon it.
And a complete reboot wouldn't even be that awkward - they could handle it in-story. The world was already over-written once for sure - when the Sundering reached backwards and forwards in time - and probably has on several other occasions (I'm thinking the Dawn Cataclysm). We have previous canon telling us that it is possible to "reach back" and make changes, so why not run with that? Or are you telling me the plethora of talented writers we have around here CAN'T figure out a good story about someone (or thing) going back and staying Cyric's hand at the critical moment?
All they gotta do is take away his Mystra-be-good-stick.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 05 Nov 2011 03:59:09 |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 04 Nov 2011 : 22:34:30
|
Next edition's RSE could be:
Dweomerdisease
Magiphage
Pfantasmal Prions AKA "Mad Realms Disease"
Rheumatoid Drowitis
ED (Elminsterile Dysfunction)
Sharilis
The "Myst" (Mystramidia)
PI (Pantheonal Infarction)
RIDS (Realms Integrity Deficiency Syndrome)*
*"Integrity" as in in-game setting integrity as in "Holy Crisises on Infinite Torils, Batman!"
|
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2011 : 03:10:14
|
| Personally, I'm a fan of a classless system. Values are applied where you want the character to be focused. I have my own modular classless system. Maybe one day I'll get around to publishing it :) |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2011 : 13:06:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I, personally, have never thought of a character in terms of striker/defender/whatever. And I've played WoW, I still play LotRO, and I'm obviously into D&D.
Personally, I think that using those terms, and speaking of classes as being part of specific roles, emphasizes what I perceive as the MMO-like nature of 4E. That's not what I want from a PnP game.
Yet those roles have been in place for D&D classes since at least 2E/AD&D, even if they weren't as easily classified. For example the terms "tank, DPR, Skill-Monkey, Battlefield controller, heal-bot" are all terms used to reference a particular class and what it's strengths are. Those that play Rogues, for example, are likely to be the one who finds and disarms Traps, being a scout for Recon, being the party's face or dealing with people, and dealing moderate to high DPR. This doesn't mean that they're ALL required to do this but it's more or less likely a expectation of the class.
Additionally people who play Fighters, Paladins, Warblades, Crusaders, and the like are expected to take the brunt of attacks from big monsters. They're heavily armored for a reason and they usually have the highest hit points and good Fortitude saves because they're on the front-lines. Generally speaking it's expected that they're the "tanks" and designed specifically to stop or delay big monsters from their more squishy allies. In 4E, they just received better tools to do that with. I'm actually thinking of making the Marking mechanic or Auras on these classes so that monsters are more or less going to engage them or take a penality.
My point is that while the Roles of classes went by un-named and un-classified they were always there. 4E just puts a more definitive mechanic to them and pushed the role-side a bit harder for a more Group-Dynamic feel.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Even if the Realms had been left untouched by the advent of 4E, I'd still not like the ruleset. I've read enough about it to know that it's not for me. I'm happy to stick with Pathfinder, because in my opinion, 3.x was the best version of D&D released.
No doubt there is still clamoring for 3E-esque style games as this is carried on by Pathfinder but I think a lot of people who didn't like the 4E rules would've still bougth FR products if the changes weren't as drastic or made a more continuious effort to further FR in the 3E sense (timeline, plots, NPCs, etc.)
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I hope 5E is more like 3.x instead of being like 4E. I think if they went back towards 3.x WotC could reclaim some of the market it lost to Pathfinder.
Note: I'm not trying to make this another chapter in the edition wars, and I'll not discuss my opinions with any that seem intent on carrying on that battle.
This is where we're going to have to disagree. For D&D to back-track to something more inline with 3.X would be disingenuous of the good things that 4E did accomplish. There are a number of changes I feel 4E did that revolutionized the brand and game. Of course this is all IMO but I think the big 3 would be 1.) the "marking" mechanic of defenders (meaning any class designed to be an up-front combatant); 2.) the Streamlined inclusion of non-basic races and the removal of Level Adjustment; and 3.) Attacks based off of multiple ability scores such as Warlocks and Bards using Charisma or Clerics using Wisdom for their attacks and the like.
To go back to the way it was or some hybrid of 3E and SW: SAGA would lose a LOT of their current 4E fan-base and might not even reclaim those whom they've lost in lieu of Pathfinder. Most of the PF fans I talk to on their messageboards have sworn off WotC for good and theres a lot of negative talk about the company that I think WotC is better to leave them go.
No, I feel 5E has to be new. Brand-spanking new that has a LOT of traditional elements of previous editions such as a return of non-combative/adventuring skills such as Profession, Perform, Craft yet have them be incorporated in a way that doesn't take away from character's ability to fight or use skills during combat. Keeping the d20 vs. DC mechanic is essential IMO as are the 4 basic classes (fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard). As for character progression, I'm more of a favor of a strict Multiclassing mechanic than the willy-nilly style of 3E. Level dipping became a Min/Max'ers dream and created the potential to make broken (as in overpowered) to broken (as in poorly constructed). I don't want to require system mastery to make the game better for those involved. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2011 : 14:05:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I, personally, have never thought of a character in terms of striker/defender/whatever. And I've played WoW, I still play LotRO, and I'm obviously into D&D.
Personally, I think that using those terms, and speaking of classes as being part of specific roles, emphasizes what I perceive as the MMO-like nature of 4E. That's not what I want from a PnP game.
Yet those roles have been in place for D&D classes since at least 2E/AD&D, even if they weren't as easily classified. For example the terms "tank, DPR, Skill-Monkey, Battlefield controller, heal-bot" are all terms used to reference a particular class and what it's strengths are. Those that play Rogues, for example, are likely to be the one who finds and disarms Traps, being a scout for Recon, being the party's face or dealing with people, and dealing moderate to high DPR. This doesn't mean that they're ALL required to do this but it's more or less likely a expectation of the class.
I have never heard those terms outside of an MMO. Especially DPR or controller.
And I object to the idea that a particular class can only fill a particular role... I had a character in 2E who was a fighter, who was all about his bow and weak on anything else. He wasn't a tank or a defender, but he was still a fighter.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Additionally people who play Fighters, Paladins, Warblades, Crusaders, and the like are expected to take the brunt of attacks from big monsters. They're heavily armored for a reason and they usually have the highest hit points and good Fortitude saves because they're on the front-lines. Generally speaking it's expected that they're the "tanks" and designed specifically to stop or delay big monsters from their more squishy allies. In 4E, they just received better tools to do that with. I'm actually thinking of making the Marking mechanic or Auras on these classes so that monsters are more or less going to engage them or take a penality.
My point is that while the Roles of classes went by un-named and un-classified they were always there. 4E just puts a more definitive mechanic to them and pushed the role-side a bit harder for a more Group-Dynamic feel.
I agree that certain classes do certain things better, and that there are expectations for each class. I just object to the idea that a particular class will always fill this specified function, when in prior editions you had a lot of flexibility there -- like my fighter who was artillery and not a tank.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
No doubt there is still clamoring for 3E-esque style games as this is carried on by Pathfinder but I think a lot of people who didn't like the 4E rules would've still bougth FR products if the changes weren't as drastic or made a more continuious effort to further FR in the 3E sense (timeline, plots, NPCs, etc.)
Agreed. I dislike both the ruleset and the changes, but I am quite capable of keeping those dislikes separate. I think I'm one of the few that has more issues with the changes than with the timeline jump -- though I don't like that, either, I can accept that more readily.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
This is where we're going to have to disagree. For D&D to back-track to something more inline with 3.X would be disingenuous of the good things that 4E did accomplish. There are a number of changes I feel 4E did that revolutionized the brand and game. Of course this is all IMO but I think the big 3 would be 1.) the "marking" mechanic of defenders (meaning any class designed to be an up-front combatant); 2.) the Streamlined inclusion of non-basic races and the removal of Level Adjustment; and 3.) Attacks based off of multiple ability scores such as Warlocks and Bards using Charisma or Clerics using Wisdom for their attacks and the like.
To go back to the way it was or some hybrid of 3E and SW: SAGA would lose a LOT of their current 4E fan-base and might not even reclaim those whom they've lost in lieu of Pathfinder. Most of the PF fans I talk to on their messageboards have sworn off WotC for good and theres a lot of negative talk about the company that I think WotC is better to leave them go.
No, I feel 5E has to be new. Brand-spanking new that has a LOT of traditional elements of previous editions such as a return of non-combative/adventuring skills such as Profession, Perform, Craft yet have them be incorporated in a way that doesn't take away from character's ability to fight or use skills during combat. Keeping the d20 vs. DC mechanic is essential IMO as are the 4 basic classes (fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard). As for character progression, I'm more of a favor of a strict Multiclassing mechanic than the willy-nilly style of 3E. Level dipping became a Min/Max'ers dream and created the potential to make broken (as in overpowered) to broken (as in poorly constructed). I don't want to require system mastery to make the game better for those involved.
I'm not saying roll all the way back -- I'm thinking more of something that is more like 3.x, but also rolls in changes to that system and also some of the better features of 4E (I am not familiar enough with those rules to know what those features are).
And Min/Maxers have always existed. You could make an RPG that had one class with few options, and someone would find a way to min/max it. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2011 : 17:01:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I have never heard those terms outside of an MMO. Especially DPR or controller.
And I object to the idea that a particular class can only fill a particular role... I had a character in 2E who was a fighter, who was all about his bow and weak on anything else. He wasn't a tank or a defender, but he was still a fighter.
I said that classes typically have a role they cater to and generally their features are tied into that role. This is plainly evident based on the bare-bones mechanics such as Weapon/Armor proficiencies, Hit Die, BAB, and Save progression. I never said they can only fill one particular role as evident by certain class options such as the Fighter's multiple feats, Divne feats, prestige classes, and about a dozen other things that are attested to character development. These options dont refute the core reasons for a specific class however. Paladins, as an example, are often used as front-line defenders but have on-the-spot healing potential and, in Pathfinder, negative effects removal thorugh their Lay on Hands. You can play a Paladin with ranged weapons, wearing light armor, and generally stay away from combat but I feel that's more of a niché style of play rather than the norm.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I agree that certain classes do certain things better, and that there are expectations for each class. I just object to the idea that a particular class will always fill this specified function, when in prior editions you had a lot of flexibility there -- like my fighter who was artillery and not a tank.
I understand and I think this might be one of those things that Markustay had mentioned with them going too far. See since they tied classes to roles with more authority, these roles came with specific mechanics. Defenders all have some sort of mechanic that allows them to engage enemies and make it harder for them to attack their allies. Leaders all have some sort of healing power that allows allies to gain HP and Strikers all have some sort of mechanic that allows them to deal more damage in a round (Rangers gain Quarry, Rogues have Sneak Attack, Warlocks have Curses, etc..) and controllers.....well they don't get one which I think makes them more versatile and less role-centric.
I don't have a problem with this because it's not like your required to use these mechanics but they are there to facilitate your classes fullest potential.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm not saying roll all the way back -- I'm thinking more of something that is more like 3.x, but also rolls in changes to that system and also some of the better features of 4E (I am not familiar enough with those rules to know what those features are).
And Min/Maxers have always existed. You could make an RPG that had one class with few options, and someone would find a way to min/max it.
Thats what I mean about keeping and bringing back traditional elements of the game to 5E. Understanding what those elements are is going to be hard. I think it's easy to assume your going to need a d20 mechanic involved. I like increasing AC vs. decreasing AC from 2E and I like a progressive attack basis for characters. I like the idea of AC more akin to Damage Reduction than a statis hit/miss effect and the idea of SAGA's Hit Point/Vitality point system. Critical hits are definitly serious when using that because of how characters can die and such. I like the idea of Healing Surges and full HP when you rest for 6-8 hrs. I'd like to keep a variant of the Vancian spellcasting but allow mages and other spellcasters to keep a small repritoire of magic usable At-Will (like in 4E).
As for Min/Maxers, I know they'll always be around and I'm not even saying they're bad. 3E just perpetrated the idea of such brokeness as Barbarian 2/Cleric 1/Fighter 4 and some obscure feat from Dragon that allows specific spell-types to be cast in addition to Divine Meta-magic (Persistant Spell) for those nice 24-hr buffs and what-not. I know this falls under the DM area of "No" but I really hate saying that when the rules specifically allow it. |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 06 Nov 2011 : 00:32:41
|
| Roles have been around since OD&D. |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 06 Nov 2011 : 02:06:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Roles have been around since OD&D.
Three then, things have changed. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 08 Nov 2011 : 04:33:31
|
I have an idea! We can all just agree that things can only get better.
We hope. As I have already stated, the alternative is unthinkable.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Roles have been around since OD&D.
True.
There was a Halfling Bakery in Greyhawk that sold really good ones... I'd have mine with honey-butter.
  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 08 Nov 2011 : 09:01:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Roles have been around since OD&D.
Classes yes, but defined roles I would disagree with.
There were/are character classes that did things, however their 'special thing' was class specific and no other character could do it i.e. only fighters got bonuses to hit and damage, even the paladin and ranger didn't get them.
My feeling with 'balanced' classes and XP tables, prestige classes, powers and surges et al from later editions of the D&D game, is that the distinctiveness between character classes has changed radically from previous editions of the game and the class archetypes are more generic now (wizards with weapon focus, thieves with spells etc).
Just my thoughts
Cheers
Damian |
So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 08 Nov 2011 : 12:57:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
Classes yes, but defined roles I would disagree with.
There were/are character classes that did things, however their 'special thing' was class specific and no other character could do it i.e. only fighters got bonuses to hit and damage, even the paladin and ranger didn't get them.
My feeling with 'balanced' classes and XP tables, prestige classes, powers and surges et al from later editions of the D&D game, is that the distinctiveness between character classes has changed radically from previous editions of the game and the class archetypes are more generic now (wizards with weapon focus, thieves with spells etc).
Yet classes were specifically designed to perform differently and give some sort of defining feature that makes them unique. Even from my AD&D/2E days, people who played clerics, for example, knew that a good portion of their time was to heal their friends and deal with undead. In 3E, it became an even more supportive role as a lot of their spells gave out bonuses to AC, to hit, damage, extra attacks, etc. They could do other things, sure, but you definitly had to go out of your way to accomplish that style while core clerics (meaning PHB material only clercis) were 90% heal-buff-defend in scope. Primarily though, their job was to keep people alive.
So instead of keeping this vague outline of what classes do, 4E just slapped on an additional mechanic that says you can perfrom a role extreamly well with tools that help you excel at your job. As Wooly mentioned earlier, he had a Fighter that used a bow and didn't really get into melee yet he was still a "fighter". Personally, I feel this has more to do with character identity and slapping the name of a class onto the character sheet than anything mechanically speaking. Sorta why I feel we saw 60+ base-classes in 3E, because players feel their characters are better identified with a specific class name stamped onto their character sheet and not necessarily what those changes mean. An other example would be for someone to play a Samurai (3E) vs. a plain Fighter (3E). For obvious reasons the Fighter is the better choice (mechanically speaking) as it can function in much of the same fashion as the Samurai and has better supplemental support than the Samurai, yet people might still go with the Samurai because it "says" Samurai.
As for how this ties into roles, well they've always been there, even if they're underlying themese or mechanics of a clas. Whether a more prominent showing of these roles are a good thing or not is debatable and I've heard good arguments that the entire idea of Roles be thrown out the window and that character become more "clsss-less", gaining the ability to take on multiple applications of roles. From my one friends perspective, it's a good way to go. Much like the MMO "Guild Wars 2 (or 3?)" in which a class is not definied by DPR, Tank, Healer, Summoner, yadda-yadda but by individualistic options and characterizations chosen by the player. Sorta like a skill/power/spell buffet that everyone can par-take in. |
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 08 Nov 2011 : 13:59:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Roles have been around since OD&D.
Classes yes, but defined roles I would disagree with.
There were/are character classes that did things, however their 'special thing' was class specific and no other character could do it i.e. only fighters got bonuses to hit and damage, even the paladin and ranger didn't get them.
My feeling with 'balanced' classes and XP tables, prestige classes, powers and surges et al from later editions of the D&D game, is that the distinctiveness between character classes has changed radically from previous editions of the game and the class archetypes are more generic now (wizards with weapon focus, thieves with spells etc).
Just my thoughts
Cheers
Damian
Was it in 2nd Ed where only fighters (not ranger/paladins/etc) could specialize in a weapon? |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Monte Cook working on 5E!
