What do you hate about D&D:Next?

Why do  you hate D&D:Next?



  • Fantasy Vietnam - I can't play a heroic character from first level, I have to start somewhere around level 5 to get that feeling in 5E.

  • Options - I need interesting options at every turn. During creation, interaction, exploration, and combat. We don't get that in 5E.

  • Non-Vancian Caster - I need a non-vancian caster or I can't play a Wizard the way I like. Its extremely simple to fix this. There's no excuse that it isn't fixed.

  • Interesting options for martial classes - My players demand interesting martial classes that are effective and equal to the Wizard in usefulness. Something 4E did well, but previous editions did not. I don't care if there are simple options for those that want them, but there must be options to be complex or at least interesting.

  • Monster Math - The monster math is so far off at this point that there is little point in testing anything else. You can't tell if a feature is a good one if the best option is to do a basic attack or cantrip to end the fight faster.


I'm sure there are more, what do you hate about 5E? Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Dead levels are about as annoying as gamers that disrespect Vietnam, Vietnam Vets, and the Vietnamese people.



Since no one is doing that, you must love dead levels.

Were are referencing a war that was deadly and ended quite a few lives. Similarly D&D characters in early editions died left and right unless the DM somehow contrived to prevent it...



There were heroes during that conflict.  Saying that heroic play is absent at any level would be considered disrespectfu.

You are wrong, but you already know it.



I said it wasn't heroic to die to a single attack from monsters and in real life its still not heroic.

I salute the soldiers that volunteered for that war, the few that did. because they thought they were serving their country (instead of getting into a proxy war with Russia and China as was the reality). There were many more that were forced there against their will who died because they chose not to kill a stranger whose country they were invading. So no it was a death trap for many and that is what we are expressing when we say earlier editions were fantasy vietnam...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I don't like how all the cool ideas, and experimentation that happened all through 3e is being ignored.

Even if you don't wanna use 4e stuff 3e learned how to do better over the course of it's run, and a game that included those lessons from the start would have been awesome.
Terms like fantasy Vietnam are meaningless.  They are easy to make for those that never served in the military, or knew anyone affected by war.  Yet another ridiculous term to decry 5e. 

I love DND NEXT and I am very glad it is here.

Will I love it as much as Pathfinder that is the question.

SO I guess the thing I hate about DND Next is I might have to choose it over Pathfinder.

CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
I dislike the way some of the game's fans hork venomous vomit at the developers. It's not a hard concept - if you want to have a discussion with the developers about a proposed change, you need to give them a polite forum where they can talk. Seriously, I've seen that work at the ToME forums, and entire classes in that game were written by fans. Good manners are the most effective way of getting what you want.

And, for balance:
I like the way most of the responses to this thread are people saying that they don't hate it. Good show, chaps!



I dislike the way some of the game's fans hork venomous vomit at the developers. It's not a hard concept - if you want to have a discussion with the developers about a proposed change, you need to give them a polite forum where they can talk. Seriously, I've seen that work at the ToME forums, and entire classes in that game were written by fans. Good manners are the most effective way of getting what you want.

And, for balance:
I like the way most of the responses to this thread are people saying that they don't hate it. Good show, chaps!




Gotta agree with everything here though I don't have the experience with that other forum.



I think its the opposite. they need to come on the forums and then the 'hate' that people mislabel would vaporize when the developers addressed our concerns. Its mainly that concerns aren't adressed that causes the negative feelings to rise.

If people came on and said that X math doesn't make sense and the developers said something like 'we are aware of that, its just a place holder' or 'we didn't notice that, we'll address it.'

Really that would be all it takes. It can't come from the people hired to keep the forums in order though. It would have to be an actual dialog with the developers...




You mean how they have totally responded to those exact things on multiple occaisions and in multiple places?



Citation needed...




You know what, no.  They said it at multiple cons, and in multiple videos, and in multiple podcasts, I'm pretty sure they even covered it in one of the few hangouts they did as a direct response to user questions.  I'm at work and I don't have time to find it all, but if you need the citation that's the best you are going to get.  Check those vids and podcasts.  If you didn't catch it the first time you watched or listend it isn't my fault.  They explained their stance on the math multiple times and if you didn't catch it it is your fault not theirs.  They explained that the numbers at this point may not be perfect however they also explained that the math was going to be one of the last steps for them in this process.  I don't care if you don't like that answer it is the answer they gave.



You know what, yes. Show me one link that backs up your claim and I won't mention it again. You can't though because I've been keeping up with everything they've said and they haven't addressed it even once...




You know that's a flat out lie then.


  Your own DM and group not being able to play 1st level rules as written successfully is no problem for the rest of us.   I'm for some optional rules to make it easier for you.
 


       But it is a problem for the rest of us.  We will be using those same rules.  Even if we assume the group has a problem with their mental abilities, we can make the same errors, and thus the rules would be better for being written so those errors can't be made [at least not without serious effort].
     Moreover, one of our chief problems nearly always is a lack of players/DMs.  All too often we just can't get a game.  Anything that discourages players, any players, is something that needs looking at.  [Now for the game to encourage players, it aso needs to discourage.  But we know that too hard will kill the game, and so we always have to worry over just how much discouragement to have, and whether it is the right way...]  Groups that can't deal with the rules is a worry we must deal with.
Terms like fantasy Vietnam are meaningless.  They are easy to make for those that never served in the military, or knew anyone affected by war.  Yet another ridiculous term to decry 5e. 

I love DND NEXT and I am very glad it is here.

Will I love it as much as Pathfinder that is the question.

SO I guess the thing I hate about DND Next is I might have to choose it over Pathfinder.




What would be a good term to use instead? Super Deadly, Rocket tage or what?Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.


  Your own DM and group not being able to play 1st level rules as written successfully is no problem for the rest of us.   I'm for some optional rules to make it easier for you.
 


       But it is a problem for the rest of us.  We will be using those same rules.  Even if we assume the group has a problem with their mental abilities, we can make the same errors, and thus the rules would be better for being written so those errors can't be made [at least not without serious effort].
     Moreover, one of our chief problems nearly always is a lack of players/DMs.  All too often we just can't get a game.  Anything that discourages players, any players, is something that needs looking at.  [Now for the game to encourage players, it aso needs to discourage.  But we know that too hard will kill the game, and so we always have to worry over just how much discouragement to have, and whether it is the right way...]  Groups that can't deal with the rules is a worry we must deal with.



Whats this "Rest of us" jazz? I am not this person nor do I ascribe to this opinion. Not everyone had this problem with earlier versions of the game. Opinions and experiences obviously very in either case. I to this day choose to play AD&D over every wotc&D and it is my prefered system.


  Your own DM and group not being able to play 1st level rules as written successfully is no problem for the rest of us.   I'm for some optional rules to make it easier for you.
 


       But it is a problem for the rest of us.  We will be using those same rules.  Even if we assume the group has a problem with their mental abilities, we can make the same errors, and thus the rules would be better for being written so those errors can't be made [at least not without serious effort].
     Moreover, one of our chief problems nearly always is a lack of players/DMs.  All too often we just can't get a game.  Anything that discourages players, any players, is something that needs looking at.  [Now for the game to encourage players, it aso needs to discourage.  But we know that too hard will kill the game, and so we always have to worry over just how much discouragement to have, and whether it is the right way...]  Groups that can't deal with the rules is a worry we must deal with.



Whats this "Rest of us" jazz? I am not this person nor do I ascribe to this opinion. Not everyone had this problem with earlier versions of the game. Opinions and experiences obviously very in either case. I to this day choose to play AD&D over every wotc&D and it is my prefered system.



Change it to 'a lot of us'
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Dead levels are about as annoying as gamers that disrespect Vietnam, Vietnam Vets, and the Vietnamese people.



Since no one is doing that, you must love dead levels.

Were are referencing a war that was deadly and ended quite a few lives. Similarly D&D characters in early editions died left and right unless the DM somehow contrived to prevent it...



There were heroes during that conflict.  Saying that heroic play is absent at any level would be considered disrespectfu.

You are wrong, but you already know it.



I said it wasn't heroic to die to a single attack from monsters and in real life its still not heroic.

I salute the soldiers that volunteered for that war, the few that did. because they thought they were serving their country (instead of getting into a proxy war with Russia and China as was the reality). There were many more that were forced there against their will who died because they chose not to kill a stranger whose country they were invading. So no it was a death trap for many and that is what we are expressing when we say earlier editions were fantasy vietnam...



Your point works but I think the term is poor and disrespectful. 

"Fantasy Vietnam - I can't play a heroic character from first level, I have to start somewhere around level 5 to get that feeling in 5E."

What other major world wide conflict could we consider when thinking of this concept?  Why is Vietnam singled out?  It is not only disrespectful but illogical.  But I appreciate your willingness to come up with a different term. 

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Dead levels are about as annoying as gamers that disrespect Vietnam, Vietnam Vets, and the Vietnamese people.



Since no one is doing that, you must love dead levels.

Were are referencing a war that was deadly and ended quite a few lives. Similarly D&D characters in early editions died left and right unless the DM somehow contrived to prevent it...



There were heroes during that conflict.  Saying that heroic play is absent at any level would be considered disrespectfu.

You are wrong, but you already know it.



I said it wasn't heroic to die to a single attack from monsters and in real life its still not heroic.

I salute the soldiers that volunteered for that war, the few that did. because they thought they were serving their country (instead of getting into a proxy war with Russia and China as was the reality). There were many more that were forced there against their will who died because they chose not to kill a stranger whose country they were invading. So no it was a death trap for many and that is what we are expressing when we say earlier editions were fantasy vietnam...



Your point works but I think the term is poor and disrespectful. 

"Fantasy Vietnam - I can't play a heroic character from first level, I have to start somewhere around level 5 to get that feeling in 5E."

What other major world wide conflict could we consider when thinking of this concept?  Why is Vietnam singled out?  It is not only disrespectful but illogical.  But I appreciate your willingness to come up with a different term. 



Is "death trap" an ok term or will it offend trappers by trade or real life assassins? Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.


  Your own DM and group not being able to play 1st level rules as written successfully is no problem for the rest of us.   I'm for some optional rules to make it easier for you.
 


       But it is a problem for the rest of us.  We will be using those same rules.  Even if we assume the group has a problem with their mental abilities, we can make the same errors, and thus the rules would be better for being written so those errors can't be made [at least not without serious effort].
     Moreover, one of our chief problems nearly always is a lack of players/DMs.  All too often we just can't get a game.  Anything that discourages players, any players, is something that needs looking at.  [Now for the game to encourage players, it aso needs to discourage.  But we know that too hard will kill the game, and so we always have to worry over just how much discouragement to have, and whether it is the right way...]  Groups that can't deal with the rules is a worry we must deal with.



Whats this "Rest of us" jazz? I am not this person nor do I ascribe to this opinion. Not everyone had this problem with earlier versions of the game. Opinions and experiences obviously very in either case. I to this day choose to play AD&D over every wotc&D and it is my prefered system.



Change it to 'a lot of us'

I just hear the same 4 of you actually. And and all are pro 4e blatant anti any other version of the game and have been consistantly for a year.Wink

Is "death trap" an ok term or will it offend trappers by trade or real life assassins?



I'm a real life assassin by trade and it offends me.  Smile


Also, Lokiare, please tell all of your enemies to stop sending me those requests.  My front door is snowed under with mail every day.   I want to keep you around so I'm refusing them but the offers keep going higher and higher.

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.



  Your own DM and group not being able to play 1st level rules as written successfully is no problem for the rest of us.   I'm for some optional rules to make it easier for you.
 


       But it is a problem for the rest of us.  We will be using those same rules.  Even if we assume the group has a problem with their mental abilities, we can make the same errors, and thus the rules would be better for being written so those errors can't be made [at least not without serious effort].
     Moreover, one of our chief problems nearly always is a lack of players/DMs.  All too often we just can't get a game.  Anything that discourages players, any players, is something that needs looking at.  [Now for the game to encourage players, it aso needs to discourage.  But we know that too hard will kill the game, and so we always have to worry over just how much discouragement to have, and whether it is the right way...]  Groups that can't deal with the rules is a worry we must deal with.



Whats this "Rest of us" jazz? I am not this person nor do I ascribe to this opinion. Not everyone had this problem with earlier versions of the game. Opinions and experiences obviously very in either case. I to this day choose to play AD&D over every wotc&D and it is my prefered system.



Change it to 'a lot of us'

I just hear the same 4 of you actually. And and all are pro 4e blatant anti any other version of the game and have been consistantly for a year.Wink



Yeah, that's why I started with 2E and thought it was awesome and currently play in a 3.5E game right now every Sunday. I simply prefer the balance and elegance of 4E over other editions...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.

Is "death trap" an ok term or will it offend trappers by trade or real life assassins?



I'm a real life assassin by trade and it offends me.  


Also, Lokiare, please tell all of your enemies to stop sending me those requests.  My front door is snowed under with mail every day.   I want to keep you around so I'm refusing them but the offers keep going higher and higher.

 



I'll tell you what, we can fake my death and split the money ok? Laughing
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Dead levels are about as annoying as gamers that disrespect Vietnam, Vietnam Vets, and the Vietnamese people.



Since no one is doing that, you must love dead levels.

Were are referencing a war that was deadly and ended quite a few lives. Similarly D&D characters in early editions died left and right unless the DM somehow contrived to prevent it...



There were heroes during that conflict.  Saying that heroic play is absent at any level would be considered disrespectfu.

You are wrong, but you already know it.



I said it wasn't heroic to die to a single attack from monsters and in real life its still not heroic.

I salute the soldiers that volunteered for that war, the few that did. because they thought they were serving their country (instead of getting into a proxy war with Russia and China as was the reality). There were many more that were forced there against their will who died because they chose not to kill a stranger whose country they were invading. So no it was a death trap for many and that is what we are expressing when we say earlier editions were fantasy vietnam...



Your point works but I think the term is poor and disrespectful. 

"Fantasy Vietnam - I can't play a heroic character from first level, I have to start somewhere around level 5 to get that feeling in 5E."

What other major world wide conflict could we consider when thinking of this concept?  Why is Vietnam singled out?  It is not only disrespectful but illogical.  But I appreciate your willingness to come up with a different term. 

Lokaire,
I agree with this poster, the term you are using is blatantly disrespectful and not only an attack on the Vietnamese people but also the soldiers who fought in that war. I am aware of your conspiracy theorist agenda and I don't care to hear it expressed against my country now or any other time. Please use some other term.

                                                  Excersise some tact please. 
                                                             Thank you
Hate is not a word I'd use to describe my opinion of any game system.

The 5e skill system is a failure in its current incarnation.  It succeeds in allowing for talented amateurs and lucky breaks, but completely fails to model competency and training.  The die roll has too much influence on the outcome compared to talent and training.

Rogues need work.  That's partially the failure of the skill system at work, but they currently don't bring enough to the table in or out of combat to make them an attractive option.

Monks need work.  They're strictly worse at martial arts than barbarians.

Bounded Accuracy will put the onus on content publishers to maintain game balance through careful editing, especially of the treasure awarded in published adventures.  D&D has a very bad track record when it comes to editing and balancing published adventures, particularly when it comes to treasure.
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish." D&D Outsider
I like DDN I hate the way these forums are going down the toilet through the usual people...
I do find it rather amusing that this thread seems to be started to drum up support from the DDN haters and most peolple are bordering on dislike to loving it accept the usual half dozen, oh and Lok who of course represents all 4th ED fans or is it  "lots of them" I think it's actually "some of them", maybe...
Oh almost forgot, smiley: Smile


Aaahhh thats better, glad I got that off my chest. Back to lurking and drinking lots of tea mmmm.
Spiked shields spare dying. Those activly hurt the game.



Explain yo'self.

I get spiked shields. They're kinda imba.

What's wrong with Spare the Dying, though? 

They prevent anyone from dying.


Everyone get's 11 Wis, put a feat to grab spare the dying.

Anytime someone drops, you bring them back up, and keep fighting.   You practicly can't die without a CDG.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Since the most common gripe here is the monster math, and they have said exactly that (that they know it needs work, and that they will get to it); you seem to be ignoring the very reaction that you're asking for.



What's so wrong with the monster math? Would you mind elaborating on this? How is the bad math affecting your D&D Next experience?

I'm having trouble understanding what you call "bad math".
I like DDN I hate the way these forums are going down the toilet through the usual people...
I do find it rather amusing that this thread seems to be started to drum up support from the DDN haters and most peolple are bordering on dislike to loving it accept the usual half dozen, oh and Lok who of course represents all 4th ED fans or is it  "lots of them" I think it's actually "some of them", maybe...
Oh almost forgot, smiley:





I loved this post.

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

I like DDN I hate the way these forums are going down the toilet through the usual people...
I do find it rather amusing that this thread seems to be started to drum up support from the DDN haters and most peolple are bordering on dislike to loving it accept the usual half dozen, oh and Lok who of course represents all 4th ED fans or is it  "lots of them" I think it's actually "some of them", maybe...
Oh almost forgot, smiley:


Aaahhh thats better, glad I got that off my chest. Back to lurking and drinking lots of tea mmmm.



Yes because there is no such thing as constructive criticism. The only kind of criticism is positive. If you even hint that you don't like something you should be perma banned from these forums...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Since the most common gripe here is the monster math, and they have said exactly that (that they know it needs work, and that they will get to it); you seem to be ignoring the very reaction that you're asking for.



What's so wrong with the monster math? Would you mind elaborating on this? How is the bad math affecting your D&D Next experience?

I'm having trouble understanding what you call "bad math".



Um how about encounters created with the DM guidelines being easy for a party half the expected level? How about Mearls' Legendary dragon being soloed by a Ranger of 7th level. Run some math. You'll see what I'm talking about...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I've removed content from this thread. Discussion of real world politics and religions is a violation of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct

Remember to keep your posts polite and on topic and refrain from discussing such material. 
I like DDN I hate the way these forums are going down the toilet through the usual people...
I do find it rather amusing that this thread seems to be started to drum up support from the DDN haters and most peolple are bordering on dislike to loving it accept the usual half dozen, oh and Lok who of course represents all 4th ED fans or is it  "lots of them" I think it's actually "some of them", maybe...
Oh almost forgot, smiley:





I loved this post.



To be fair.

As an observation, Lokiare has provided more brainstorming material for this edition than most posters on this forum, including myself.  I will call him out when I think he has crossed the line, but for the most part, he has some legitimate concerns.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Since the most common gripe here is the monster math, and they have said exactly that (that they know it needs work, and that they will get to it); you seem to be ignoring the very reaction that you're asking for.



What's so wrong with the monster math? Would you mind elaborating on this? How is the bad math affecting your D&D Next experience?

I'm having trouble understanding what you call "bad math".



Um how about encounters created with the DM guidelines being easy for a party half the expected level? How about Mearls' Legendary dragon being soloed by a Ranger of 7th level. Run some math. You'll see what I'm talking about...




A ranger of 7th level can't solo the dragon unless you entirely remove tactics and just stand the dragon in front of them like a **** punching bag.
D&D characters in early editions died left and right unless the DM somehow contrived to prevent it.

Isn't that true of ALL RPGs?  Currently I am playing 4E, for example.  There is nothing preventing the DM from overwhelming us and killing all of us, other than the fact that he doesn't want to.  In other words, the DM is purposely preventing it.

So it is really an issue of either raising starting HP or lowering monster damage.  The former is much easier to implement, so I really don't think this is something to get worked up over.

If you want 1st level heroes to be able to survive 4 hits, increase HP until they can. 
Next has alot of problems. 1: weapons and armor. Every edition so far has a better weapons and armor setup. 2: cantrips. They are boring, so instead of making them useful minor debuffs or utilities or buffs or traps, they made them overpowered. 3: fighter manuvers. Most fighter manuvers where just lame versions of feats in 3rd. I dont need fighters to be able to do everything wizards can do, Im not in that camp, but at the same time fighters shouldnt be the wizards bitch. 4: warlords. Some people complain about how we trash some of the designers, but they asked for it when they didnt come outright about the warlord. I called Mearls out on it and he tried to avoid the question and when I got pissed about that, they threatened to ban me. I have serious doubts about throwing the warlord into the fighter, and I dont think doing it with feats is going to be possible.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

One more thing, I dont think next needs to be 4.5 but the greatest thing 4th encouraged was team play. Next is just a dps war and monsters are boring.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

What I worry about is that the call for "interesting" options will bury all the characters under a mountain of codified actions and exceptions that the game will not flow for those that want simple and fast.
D&D characters in early editions died left and right unless the DM somehow contrived to prevent it.

Isn't that true of ALL RPGs?  Currently I am playing 4E, for example.  There is nothing preventing the DM from overwhelming us and killing all of us, other than the fact that he doesn't want to.  In other words, the DM is purposely preventing it.

So it is really an issue of either raising starting HP or lowering monster damage.  The former is much easier to implement, so I really don't think this is something to get worked up over.

If you want 1st level heroes to be able to survive 4 hits, increase HP until they can. 



I had to prevent the orc minions from using their power last wednesday night at encounters because the party was down in hitpoints.  This is no different than I have done any other edition, except at encounters to 'sell' the game I generally am much more pro player.



CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
Dead levels are about as annoying as gamers that disrespect Vietnam, Vietnam Vets, and the Vietnamese people.



Since no one is doing that, you must love dead levels.

Were are referencing a war that was deadly and ended quite a few lives. Similarly D&D characters in early editions died left and right unless the DM somehow contrived to prevent it...



There were heroes during that conflict.  Saying that heroic play is absent at any level would be considered disrespectfu.

You are wrong, but you already know it.



I said it wasn't heroic to die to a single attack from monsters and in real life its still not heroic.

I salute the soldiers that volunteered for that war, the few that did. because they thought they were serving their country (instead of getting into a proxy war with Russia and China as was the reality). There were many more that were forced there against their will who died because they chose not to kill a stranger whose country they were invading. So no it was a death trap for many and that is what we are expressing when we say earlier editions were fantasy vietnam...



Your point works but I think the term is poor and disrespectful. 

"Fantasy Vietnam - I can't play a heroic character from first level, I have to start somewhere around level 5 to get that feeling in 5E."

What other major world wide conflict could we consider when thinking of this concept?  Why is Vietnam singled out?  It is not only disrespectful but illogical.  But I appreciate your willingness to come up with a different term. 

Lokaire,
I agree with this poster, the term you are using is blatantly disrespectful and not only an attack on the Vietnamese people but also the soldiers who fought in that war. I am aware of your conspiracy theorist agenda and I don't care to hear it expressed against my country now or any other time. Please use some other term.

                                                  Excersise some tact please. 
                                                             Thank you


I'm staggered by the amount of alternative term suggestions in this post.
To be fair.

As an observation, Lokiare has provided more brainstorming material for this edition than most posters on this forum, including myself.  I will call him out when I think he has crossed the line, but for the most part, he has some legitimate concerns.

True.

He's not exactly polite, or anything relating to polite, but he does bring up plenty of valid ideas and concerns.  Repeatedly, perhaps, but still, his input will help the end results.

You just need a good noise filter.
I mean, mentally soften "why do you hate", to "what do you dislike about", and you've got a thread worth of very useful feedback.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Overall I like 5th edition. There are a few things I hope they fix before the final print, however. Some of these are bigger gripes than others, naturally. But each time i've played 5th edition I've had fun.
Why do you hate D&D:Next?



I don't.
Dead levels are about as annoying as gamers that disrespect Vietnam, Vietnam Vets, and the Vietnamese people.



Since no one is doing that, you must love dead levels.

Were are referencing a war that was deadly and ended quite a few lives. Similarly D&D characters in early editions died left and right unless the DM somehow contrived to prevent it...



There were heroes during that conflict.  Saying that heroic play is absent at any level would be considered disrespectfu.

You are wrong, but you already know it.



I said it wasn't heroic to die to a single attack from monsters and in real life its still not heroic.

I salute the soldiers that volunteered for that war, the few that did. because they thought they were serving their country (instead of getting into a proxy war with Russia and China as was the reality). There were many more that were forced there against their will who died because they chose not to kill a stranger whose country they were invading. So no it was a death trap for many and that is what we are expressing when we say earlier editions were fantasy vietnam...



Your point works but I think the term is poor and disrespectful. 

"Fantasy Vietnam - I can't play a heroic character from first level, I have to start somewhere around level 5 to get that feeling in 5E."

What other major world wide conflict could we consider when thinking of this concept?  Why is Vietnam singled out?  It is not only disrespectful but illogical.  But I appreciate your willingness to come up with a different term. 

Lokaire,
I agree with this poster, the term you are using is blatantly disrespectful and not only an attack on the Vietnamese people but also the soldiers who fought in that war. I am aware of your conspiracy theorist agenda and I don't care to hear it expressed against my country now or any other time. Please use some other term.

                                                  Excersise some tact please. 
                                                             Thank you


I'm staggered by the amount of alternative term suggestions in this post.



I suggest Gritty Fantasy as an antonym to Heroic Fantasy.  You?

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Because it's boring and bland and built for the minority of gamers when it was supposed to be the exact opposite. I want a fun edition of D&D that anyone can sit down and play, regardless of edition preference.

Instead we just have the fanbase fragmented again as Mearls continously ignores 1E, 2E, and 4E fans in favor of trying to steal 3.5 fans away from Pathfinder. It's ridiculous that this is being billed as a "everybody's D&D game!".

We're supposed be getting the chosen one and instead we're getting Darth Vader. And not even a cool and interesting Vader. It's the dulled down, simplistic, boring prequel Vader. 

Stop the H4TE

My viewpoints aren't the majority. I was asked why I hated Next, and I answered. Doesn't matter one wit whether or not mine are in the majority or the minority though.




you indicated that it was built for a minority of gamers, and noted that as something you disliked.  Unless you consider every word they say to be lies every indication we have is that a majority of the people currently playing the game want it to be the way it is being designed towards.
I wouldn't use "Hate" but here are my current concerns:

1. Bounded Accuracy: I want heroes to feel like they are progressing, from the low levels, where they take on Kobolds and Bandits, but wouldn't dream of facing a Dragon, to the mid-levels, where they are called in to face a Dragon that the Town militia couldn't dream of taking on, to the High Levels, where the Terrasque is awakened, and only someone of the caliber of the Heroes can possibly face this threat. I want Heroes to be a step above the common man, where Robin Hood can split the arrow 19 times out of 20, but the local yokel huntsman can't even hope to compete.

2. Apprentice Tier: This is the 'tutorial level' and thus, should be optional, because lets face it, even in those games that actually have a tutorial level, nobody plays those levels through every time. Just telling me to start at 3rd or 5th or whatever is not a satisfactory answer to this concern. Speeding up the level progression through those levels is not satisfactory either. Some of us want a full progression, 1st to 20th, and many of us want past 20th available.

3. Advantage/Disadvantage: I like the overall thought behind reducing stacking modifiers, but I don't like the boolean On or Off nature of Adv/Disadv as it is currently, and I also worry about how cumbersome it becomes in larger groups where everyone in a band has one condition or the other, or worse, 2 bands against each other, some get advantage, some grant disadvantage, and you have to figure it all out.

4. Fighters are still boring: Yes, I know you can role-play/describe what your fighter does, but you can do that with your Wizard, your Rogue, and your Ranger too, the fact is, fighters have nothing to balance them out next to other classes and thus become the poor boy wipping post class. I know many use the Fighter as the "Training Wheels" class to introduce new players, but in this day and age of WoW and Harry Potter, new players don't want to start out as the simple fighter even if a fighter is what they want to play, they want to be as epic as their companions from day 1.

5. Alignment as a mechanic: I feel alignment is a good tool of the DM to judge/note how Monsters/NPCs will act, but don't see it as a true mechanical function of the game. For PCs it acts more as a handicap than a role-playing incentive.

6. Monster Math: YES, I realize finalizing the math to balance the game especially in regards to the Monsters is something that really has to wait until the end of the playtest/development cycle, so I know the figures we're seeing are not the final versions, however, I would be remisce if I didn't point out the concern about the math as it currently stands.

7. Going back on initial Promises: I may not especially care one way or the other for certain classes, and in fact be a fan of the Core-4 philosophy, however, a promise was made to include every class that has appeared in a PHB#1 of any edition of D&D. This promise needs to be honored, at least in the Standard (Mid-Complexity) version of the game. In BASIC, I see the Core-4 only as fine, but once you get to standard, in addition to ways to 'Build' these various classes via Specialties, Backgrounds, Build Choices, and Multi-classing, there also needs to be pure class options for each one of these, so that the developers live up to the spirit and not just the word of their promise when they talked about releasing the 5th edition. As it is now, even with the build options and such, classes like the Warlord are being thrown under the bus...and it has been blatantly claimed by MM and others that the Warlord would not be featured in D&DNext upon release. This is a direct violation of the promise made when the playtest was first announced.

 8. Saving Throws vs Static Defenses: There is a distinct imbalance when it comes to Martial attacks vs. Spell type attacks that can be traced directly to the use of Saving Throws. Because spell DCs generally do go up as the caster levels, however, Monster Saving Throws don't (ability scores being capped at 20 means saves don't really go up for PCs much either). Spells that do damage should require an attack roll, even if that attack roll is against a defense other than AC. Fort, Reflex, and Will as defenses was one of the best adaptations that 4e put into the game. Spells that don't do damage, on the other hand, you might argue would be worthwhile to have Saved against, and these saves could be based on the 6 ability scores (as could static defenses, if you didn't use Fort/Ref/Will)

9. Rocket-Tag/Fantasy Vietnam/Death-Trap play: Lower level default starting hitpoints should take a mid-ground between older editions and 4e. Every character should be able to sustain at least 3 average hits before going to zero at 1st level, by default. Then, as an optional Dial, let individual groups dial up or down the lethality level. There have been several excellent suggestions for ways to modify the starting hitpoint totals so that this was less of a problem.

10. Feats equal to Stat boosts: I am not sure how well this is going to work, personally. As many have pointed out, boosting a stat to an Even number is a lot more powerful than boosting to an odd number firstly. Second, the actual value of a stat bump in a bounded accuracy system when it is going to that Even number can far out-shadow most of the feats currently introduced. I know new, redesigned feats are coming, but I worry about the whole balancing act in this regard. 
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
I wouldn't use "Hate" but here are my current concerns:

1. Bounded Accuracy: I want heroes to feel like they are progressing, from the low levels, where they take on Kobolds and Bandits, but wouldn't dream of facing a Dragon, to the mid-levels, where they are called in to face a Dragon that the Town militia couldn't dream of taking on, to the High Levels, where the Terrasque is awakened, and only someone of the caliber of the Heroes can possibly face this threat. I want Heroes to be a step above the common man, where Robin Hood can split the arrow 19 times out of 20, but the local yokel huntsman can't even hope to compete.

2. Apprentice Tier: This is the 'tutorial level' and thus, should be optional, because lets face it, even in those games that actually have a tutorial level, nobody plays those levels through every time. Just telling me to start at 3rd or 5th or whatever is not a satisfactory answer to this concern. Speeding up the level progression through those levels is not satisfactory either. Some of us want a full progression, 1st to 20th, and many of us want past 20th available.

3. Advantage/Disadvantage: I like the overall thought behind reducing stacking modifiers, but I don't like the boolean On or Off nature of Adv/Disadv as it is currently, and I also worry about how cumbersome it becomes in larger groups where everyone in a band has one condition or the other, or worse, 2 bands against each other, some get advantage, some grant disadvantage, and you have to figure it all out.

4. Fighters are still boring: Yes, I know you can role-play/describe what your fighter does, but you can do that with your Wizard, your Rogue, and your Ranger too, the fact is, fighters have nothing to balance them out next to other classes and thus become the poor boy wipping post class. I know many use the Fighter as the "Training Wheels" class to introduce new players, but in this day and age of WoW and Harry Potter, new players don't want to start out as the simple fighter even if a fighter is what they want to play, they want to be as epic as their companions from day 1.

5. Alignment as a mechanic: I feel alignment is a good tool of the DM to judge/note how Monsters/NPCs will act, but don't see it as a true mechanical function of the game. For PCs it acts more as a handicap than a role-playing incentive.

6. Monster Math: YES, I realize finalizing the math to balance the game especially in regards to the Monsters is something that really has to wait until the end of the playtest/development cycle, so I know the figures we're seeing are not the final versions, however, I would be remisce if I didn't point out the concern about the math as it currently stands.

7. Going back on initial Promises: I may not especially care one way or the other for certain classes, and in fact be a fan of the Core-4 philosophy, however, a promise was made to include every class that has appeared in a PHB#1 of any edition of D&D. This promise needs to be honored, at least in the Standard (Mid-Complexity) version of the game. In BASIC, I see the Core-4 only as fine, but once you get to standard, in addition to ways to 'Build' these various classes via Specialties, Backgrounds, Build Choices, and Multi-classing, there also needs to be pure class options for each one of these, so that the developers live up to the spirit and not just the word of their promise when they talked about releasing the 5th edition. As it is now, even with the build options and such, classes like the Warlord are being thrown under the bus...and it has been blatantly claimed by MM and others that the Warlord would not be featured in D&DNext upon release. This is a direct violation of the promise made when the playtest was first announced.

 8. Saving Throws vs Static Defenses: There is a distinct imbalance when it comes to Martial attacks vs. Spell type attacks that can be traced directly to the use of Saving Throws. Because spell DCs generally do go up as the caster levels, however, Monster Saving Throws don't (ability scores being capped at 20 means saves don't really go up for PCs much either). Spells that do damage should require an attack roll, even if that attack roll is against a defense other than AC. Fort, Reflex, and Will as defenses was one of the best adaptations that 4e put into the game. Spells that don't do damage, on the other hand, you might argue would be worthwhile to have Saved against, and these saves could be based on the 6 ability scores (as could static defenses, if you didn't use Fort/Ref/Will)

9. Rocket-Tag/Fantasy Vietnam/Death-Trap play: Lower level default starting hitpoints should take a mid-ground between older editions and 4e. Every character should be able to sustain at least 3 average hits before going to zero at 1st level, by default. Then, as an optional Dial, let individual groups dial up or down the lethality level. There have been several excellent suggestions for ways to modify the starting hitpoint totals so that this was less of a problem.

10. Feats equal to Stat boosts: I am not sure how well this is going to work, personally. As many have pointed out, boosting a stat to an Even number is a lot more powerful than boosting to an odd number firstly. Second, the actual value of a stat bump in a bounded accuracy system when it is going to that Even number can far out-shadow most of the feats currently introduced. I know new, redesigned feats are coming, but I worry about the whole balancing act in this regard. 



^Yup this. I agree 100% with you.

Stop the H4TE

I have removed content from this thread because Personal attacks are a violation of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
 
Sign In to post comments