Am I the only one liking this?

Personally I am loving the returns of some really basic things. Swappable spells for wizards, martial casses not bogged down by a slew of hard to get used to powers, and generally a feel of what made 3.5 good.

Most people posting here on the other hand seem livid. I have played both 3.5e and 4e, and while they both have their merit it was actually harder to get players into 4e because while the rules were simple character building was horribly complicated with all the powers to the point where playing every class was like playing a wizard back in the day. Every classes eventually felt terribly bogged down by pages of abilities. I guess this is why essentials classes went heavy on focusing on the MBA.

I don't see how fixing that can be a bad thing.
Personally I am loving the returns of some really basic things. Swappable spells for wizards, martial casses not bogged down by a slew of hard to get used to powers, and generally a feel of what made 3.5 good.




I would agree. As I noted in my blog post  on the matter, I am cautiously optimistic for the possibilities in this new edition.

Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

I love it, but we are still ounumbered by the 4E crowd on these forums which is perfectly natural. It's been mentioned before, but for everyone here, there are piles of players who never visit. My whole group is psyhced by the playtest so far, but I am the only one of five who visits these forums. Even then, as you can see by my stats, I rarely post. I will be saving most of my feedback for the official surveys and encourage all of my players to do likewise.

Veteran of The Transfer... Add 700 to my post count... 

I love it, but we are still ounumbered by the 4E crowd on these forums which is perfectly natural. It's been mentioned before, but for everyone here, there are piles of players who never visit. My whole group is psyhced by the playtest so far, but I am the only one of five who visits these forums. Even then, as you can see by my stats, I rarely post. I will be saving most of my feedback for the official surveys and encourage all of my players to do likewise.




Ya the 4e folks are in  a nerd rage, but they had to expect that.
From what I've played/run so far I'll say that I'm a fan of what we see.  It has some things to polish out, for sure, but that's the whole point of the playtest.  I think it's just a matter of forums tending to focus on the negatives more often than not.  We're less likely to point out stuff we like rather than the opposite.
The problem lies mostly with the lack of options for-non casters.

Which is a bit unfair at this point because we've got a grand total of 3 levels, and no real character build decisions.

This is a play test. It exists to be improved. 
I'm excited too. Me and my group love the direction they seem to be going with 5e. 
I like it so far. I am excited to be playing D&D next!
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
I think the issue is that 4E brought in a lot of MMO players, because I always felt like the character creation and powers style was close to how MMO games work.  That's why you see the "nerd rage" as it was put.  Personally, that's one of the things that put me off about 4E.  
No, your not the only one that likes this... but there are a large number of very vocal 4e fanboys nerd raging at the moment.   Not that all of the 4e fans are doing so... I'm not painting them all with the same brush.  Some are perfectly reasonable people who just have very odd tastes :p

I don't like all of it.  Not by a long shot.  There are a few too many 'gamist' mechanics for my liking.  Much of what is good needs to tweaked and I hope much of what i don't like can be removed/replaced by modules in the final game so I'm not going to rage about it.  On the whole I think it looks promising though.
I agree whole heartily that this is an step foward from 3, 3.5e, pathfinder. Not a face plant that was 4e. I have the playtest packet, read it and enjoyed that fighter types had to once aggain be descriptive with their attacks. 
The problem lies mostly with the lack of options for-non casters.

Which is a bit unfair at this point because we've got a grand total of 3 levels, and no real character build decisions.

This is a play test. It exists to be improved. 




Here is my point though. The fighter used to be a great entry point because of the lack of options. It was a way to get a play into the game where they didn't have to worry about what attack to use or anything like that. You could just swing. Playing like this fighters were still pretty awesome!

Add all these powers, etc and the fight became as initmidating as an arcane class to level. These ease often came back to bite them as Linear Warriors and Quadtratic Wizards came to play but that was one of the more realistic (as far as realistic can go in DnD aspect of roleplaying in an rpg) parts of the game I enjoyed. 

I am hoping as the game evolves feats become a little more flushed out and fighters get those to compensate (like the old days) but I really hope powers don't come back.
For me, I like what I've seen so far, but I'm not going to stand up and sing the system's praises until I've seen even more, whereas people who don't like it can start talking immediately about what they hate about it.
I love what I've seen from the Playtest. It seems to be much closer to my ideal D&D than either 3rd edition or 4th edition were.
I am hoping as the game evolves feats become a little more flushed out and fighters get those to compensate (like the old days) but I really hope powers don't come back.



Same here on powers. I would actually prefer fighters getting bonuses to hit and damage from their class with certain weapon classes and for the bonuses to grow as they level rather than have it be feat based.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

Not everyone disliking the "new" rules is a stupid 4venger MMO kid, you know. Well, I am, but that's beside the point (and I actually don't like MMOs at all).

But as rampant mentioned it, the main problem seems to be non-casters looking boring compared to casters. Maybe the classes presented in the 4e PHB were too similar to each other, but a system that would be a little more interesting than choice of weapon and proficiencies for the fighter to basic attack with would be very welcome.
Maybe something like the stuff the Essentials brought in, no dailies, but "stances" or something other letting the player modify a number of known maneuvers on the fly...

Also, less HP = good, but Save or Die = baad. Waiting for the earlier announced HP based solution.
Ran the play test for my group. 1 person had not played since 2nd ed. 1 was introduced to d&d via 4e. 3 have played 3/3.5. Normally I run a 4e game. We had an outstanding time. More RPing went down then any of the 4e games I've run. Everyone had a great time. I was asked how many more games the play test will allow us to run. Thankfully caves of chaos has enough material to last my group from at least two or three more sessions.

One note, we are all eager for more character options.

I´m interested in seeing more stuff for 5E. It seems promising right now, and I have hopes it´s going to be a great game, embracing the best of D&D Game.

I like 4e a lot, I think it is a great game, but I must agree it´s difficult for new players to get in to the power system, which is a bit complicated for someone who has never played RPGs before. It tends to be
more complicated toward higher levels, and sometimes all the technicality gets in the way with combats taking most of the session time.

That said, I do hope that 5E will have a super simple core system that is more like basic D&D, and pieces of rules (they are calling it modules) you can implement on top of it so you can have a more tactical 4E like experience or whatever experience the group prefers. At the same time it won´t kill the game for those that prefer not having it. If they prefer thay can stick with the very simples rules. If they manage to put into together I can´t get any better.

What makes me believe they can do it is that I trust a lot in the designers involved in the project, seeing the stuff they did in 4E, and how they are aware of earlier editions at the same time I´m sure they can do great stuff. The objective here is to bring back the people that left D&D and keep us, current players. So, my mind is to give these guys a vote of confidence and see what they are up to. I would like follow the play test, give feedback and see the finished product.



So, yes, I´m optimistic about it and looking forward to it right now. Wink


Maybe something like the stuff the Essentials brought in, no dailies, but "stances" or something other letting the player modify a number of known maneuvers on the fly...



What about the various stance 3e had? Things like power strike, etc?

Really I just want there to be an easy martal class for players to step into and not feel intimidated. It if fine if there are other classes with more class features (not powers) that spice things up.

I loved every edition of D&D since AD&D and this one is no exception. This is just a core system and it is very fun and fast paced. I love the ability score saving throws and the advantage/disadvantages the most with this new edtion thus far.


Also, less HP = good, but Save or Die = baad. Waiting for the earlier announced HP based solution.



Save or dies are not bad.  How save or dies were implemented in 3e was bad since it was really easy to make things fail there saves, but in 1e/2e they were wild gambles that rarely paid off and those worked fine.  There is nothing wrong with someone ending a epic fight in a single blow as long as it isn't something you expect to be repeatable.  

As for the general theme in this thread about the new game, I'm optomistic, but I'll say I want martial options with powers.  While yes a effective simple fighter is awesome, it is also awesome to have a guy who can hit every target in a 100' with an arrow with a single move.   
... it is also awesome to have a guy who can hit every target in a 100' with an arrow with a single move.   



Heh. I can't see myself playing a game that had such a feature.
I've played all versions, and I'm happy with what I'm seeing so far.  It seems like we're returning to the roots of the game that's lasted all these decades.  There's room for improvement of course, but at this point I can't wait for further developments. 
Agree with the OP here.

I've not gotten to play the adventure yet, so I'm saving my review/feedback.  I'll be playing this weekend though with my home group and probably with one or both of my online groups later this week.  But from what I've read, I'm loving it.  I mean, I have a couple of minor issues with it, like carrying capacity not being too realistic, and I don't like the natural healing rules, but these things are EASILY houseruled in a system like this and 1st/2nd editions of D&D.

I have to admit.  Reading the forums and polls, I was losing hope that 5th edition might turn out more a uniting of 3rd and 4th editions, or simply a rebash of 4th edition as opposed to a uniting of ALL editions as promised.  But the playtest materials went a long way toward allaying my fears.   I expect the game will flow like the old editions, and progress and rich story and roleplay will return to the game.  And it's pretty much what I wanted.  I never wanted 5th edition to be 1st or 2nd edition.  I just wanted the flow and classic class roles of those older editions, but with modernised mechanics, more class options, and finally some f'king support.  I actually have a reason to come to the WotC website now and, after 5th's release, subscribe to the Insider.  WotC is finally throwing old core players a bone.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/5.jpg)

... it is also awesome to have a guy who can hit every target in a 100' with an arrow with a single move.   



Heh. I can't see myself playing a game that had such a feature.



Not sure if you are serious, but I'll play along.

Why?  Once it is a power it is basically magic enhanced physical activities, it is not like the person is doing the impossible purely from skill.  Why can't a martial option include the fantastic, why does magic only have to come in the package of spells?


Maybe something like the stuff the Essentials brought in, no dailies, but "stances" or something other letting the player modify a number of known maneuvers on the fly...



What about the various stance 3e had? Things like power strike, etc?

Really I just want there to be an easy martal class for players to step into and not feel intimidated. It if fine if there are other classes with more class features (not powers) that spice things up.



Power strike, careful strike, cleave, something that disrupts your opponent giving you or your ally an advantage... those sort of things.
Why?  Once it is a power it is basically magic enhanced physical activities, it is not like the person is doing the impossible purely from skill.  Why can't a martial option include the fantastic, why does magic only have to come in the package of spells?



If I wanted to magically enhance my abilities beyond some equipment I purchase I'd play a caster. I like fighters specifically because their abilities are mundane.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

... it is also awesome to have a guy who can hit every target in a 100' with an arrow with a single move.   



Heh. I can't see myself playing a game that had such a feature.



Stay WAY away from Exalted and Scion, then.  Laughing
I haven't played it yet, but I like what I am seeing. I'm not saying its perfect, and there are already some things I do not like, but for the most part it looks good.
That said, I do hope that 5E will have a super simple core system that is more like basic D&D, and pieces of rules (they are calling it modules) you can implement on top of it so you can have a more tactical 4E like experience or whatever experience the group prefers. At the same time it won´t kill the game for those that prefer not having it. If they prefer thay can stick with the very simples rules. If they manage to put into together I can´t get any better.



This is an interesting point.  We're currently playing 1E AD&D rules, simply because the bulk of our group hadn't played in so long and we wanted a more basic rules system that wouldn't overwhelm everyone.  It's been interesting, kinda a throwback game.

Personally, as a DM I've always used the rules set as more guidelines, and modified things as needed to make the experience more enjoyable for my players.  I think this concept of basic and advanced rules is a great approach.
I havent had a chance to play it yet in full (hard to convince the rest of the party, just who they are), but personally looking over it i think its fantastic so far. I love backrounds and themes, almost like a harkeen back to kits. They actually incorporate out of combat elements! Its so much more wonderful then the combat gridlocked 4e days. I love the new caster options with cantrips and such. Of course theres some rome for improvment, here and there, but over all, as a new generation AD&D-er, i find the thief theme of the rouge familiar and refreshing. While i cant say anything about how it actually plays out (although ive heard good things), i love how it looks so far on the page.
You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what I create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
Decks Esper Beatdown WUB Jund Devour BRG
Overall I like it.  I can't expect everything to be perfect on day one.  This is a playtest.   My main beef was healing and I think they are getting a lot of feedback on that front.
Have to say I like it, overall.  Only real complaint I have is with the Medusa, and that's a minor one.

Other issues are acutally beyond the scope of the play test, such as the issues with the fighter, or the wizard, and are more then likely non-issues once we can see the full rules for classes, backgrounds, and themes.  Or rely on knowledge that is obviously not developed yet, such as the encounter and adventure design rules, and the XP reward guidelines.

Overall, looking good, potentially.  Could still go south in a screaming hurry though.  We'll see.  I'm trying to remain cynically optomistic, if that makes sense.
Why?  Once it is a power it is basically magic enhanced physical activities, it is not like the person is doing the impossible purely from skill.  Why can't a martial option include the fantastic, why does magic only have to come in the package of spells?



If I wanted to magically enhance my abilities beyond some equipment I purchase I'd play a caster. I like fighters specifically because their abilities are mundane.



Sure, but is is bad that there might be a option for someone who can do that.  A rune warrior who enchants his body with runes for fantastic power for example.  A monk kind of is like this but focused on unarmed attacks, would it be bad if someone could do similar impossible feats but with a blade or a bow.  I'm not proposing that should be the default for the fighter, but I think there should be classes that can do things like this.  
Why?  Once it is a power it is basically magic enhanced physical activities, it is not like the person is doing the impossible purely from skill.  Why can't a martial option include the fantastic, why does magic only have to come in the package of spells?



If I wanted to magically enhance my abilities beyond some equipment I purchase I'd play a caster. I like fighters specifically because their abilities are mundane.



Sure, but is is bad that there might be a option for someone who can do that.  A rune warrior who enchants his body with runes for fantastic power for example.  A monk kind of is like this but focused on unarmed attacks, would it be bad if someone could do similar impossible feats but with a blade or a bow.  I'm not proposing that should be the default for the fighter, but I think there should be classes that can do things like this.  



If it was a separate class I'd be overjoyed.  Of course the Paladin is just one example of a magically enhanced fighter.   I'd be all for some others.  Your rune warrior is a great idea.  But let's allow for a simple basic fighter at minimum because a lot of people want to play that class.  I'd be ok for a bit more complex fighter that could be called a weapon master or something.
I like what I have seen so far, it is to early for complaints yet.
That said, I do hope that 5E will have a super simple core system that is more like basic D&D, and pieces of rules (they are calling it modules) you can implement on top of it so you can have a more tactical 4E like experience or whatever experience the group prefers. At the same time it won´t kill the game for those that prefer not having it. If they prefer thay can stick with the very simples rules. If they manage to put into together I can´t get any better.



This is an interesting point.  We're currently playing 1E AD&D rules, simply because the bulk of our group hadn't played in so long and we wanted a more basic rules system that wouldn't overwhelm everyone.  It's been interesting, kinda a throwback game.

Personally, as a DM I've always used the rules set as more guidelines, and modified things as needed to make the experience more enjoyable for my players.  I think this concept of basic and advanced rules is a great approach.

I understand, I have different groups of players, old and new, and some mix between. I know a lot of people who gets overwhelmed with to many options, they are more interested in the role playing experience, they could easily use a simpler core system, Basic D&D like. It´s great for newcomers as well. Then you have more complex rules build on top of it for seasoned players to choose from.

No, your not the only one that likes this... but there are a large number of very vocal 4e fanboys nerd raging at the moment.   Not that all of the 4e fans are doing so... I'm not painting them all with the same brush.  Some are perfectly reasonable people who just have very odd tastes :p

I don't like all of it.  Not by a long shot.  There are a few too many 'gamist' mechanics for my liking.  Much of what is good needs to tweaked and I hope much of what i don't like can be removed/replaced by modules in the final game so I'm not going to rage about it.  On the whole I think it looks promising though.



I agree.   There are still some gamist mechanics.

Honestly, people have to relax a bit.     If I was creating a playtest ruleset I would toss in a few rules here and there for the sole purpose of gaging the direction of the D&D community.   To that end, gamist and simulationist rules are to be expected in the play test.     The designers want to see what will and won't work.     

The problem, as other have pointed out,  is that these forums are not a good demographic of who is playing D&D.   Most people who don't like 4e won't be found on these forums.    Many have returned with high hopes for the game only to be slamed by all the 4e fanboys.    Those who are nerd raging now are the same gamers who preiously told old school gamers " to get lost and play 2e or 3e".    Concerns that old school gamers articulated about 4e were joked about and completely ridiculed on these forums.   In the end,  I think it's only poetic justice that the same happens in return with 5e.   

IMO, the very fact that some gamers feel treatned by some of the references to DM fiat throughout the playtest material is proof enough that D&D went in the wrong direction with 4e.     

With that said I want the game to work for everyone.  I'm just not convinced that 4e was really D&D to begin with.   Therefore, I'm not realy all that concerned if the 4e fanboys don't like D&D.  


Personally I am loving the returns of some really basic things. Swappable spells for wizards, martial casses not bogged down by a slew of hard to get used to powers, and generally a feel of what made 3.5 good.

Most people posting here on the other hand seem livid. I have played both 3.5e and 4e, and while they both have their merit it was actually harder to get players into 4e because while the rules were simple character building was horribly complicated with all the powers to the point where playing every class was like playing a wizard back in the day. Every classes eventually felt terribly bogged down by pages of abilities. I guess this is why essentials classes went heavy on focusing on the MBA.

I don't see how fixing that can be a bad thing.

I am so excited with the direction they went.  Silverque- everything you said is exactly how I feel.  Next is the system I wanted.
Concerns that old school gamers articulated about 4e were joked about and completely ridiculed on these forums.   In the end,  I think it's only poetic justice that the same happens in return with 5e.


Can you step back and honestly say that this attitude is fair?  Or objective?  Or productive?

With that said I want the game to work for everyone.  I'm just not convinced that 4e was really D&D to begin with.   Therefore, I'm not realy all that concerned if the 4e fanboys don't like D&D.  


If this game does not capture what people like about 4e as well as earlier editions, it will have failed in its stated design goals.
After downloading and printing off the Beastiary I am already disgusted with 5th . Most of the special rules for creatures all basically require the use of mini's . So Wizards is trying to create yet another table top battle game disguised as an RPG . I was really excited now I am not even going to bother . 3.5 it is or pathfinder , I knew it was too good to be true 
Sign In to post comments