| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
 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. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
Edited by - Hawkins on 22 Jun 2012 00:20:10 |
 |
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
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 |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36891 Posts |
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. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
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 |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
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.
|
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
EytanBernstein
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
704 Posts |
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. |
http://eytanbernstein.com - the official website of Eytan Bernstein |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
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. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
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). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36891 Posts |
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. |
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 17 May 2013 23:46:30 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
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. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
Edited by - Diffan on 18 May 2013 06:22:08 |
|
|
|
EytanBernstein
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
704 Posts |
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. |
http://eytanbernstein.com - the official website of Eytan Bernstein |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36891 Posts |
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. |
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! |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
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). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 18 May 2013 15:45:50 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
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? |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
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's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
D&D "Next" Public Playtests
