|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 6:25AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
@Kalex_the_Omen
What you say is true if the game is pretty successful. If it is not successful then I could see another edition.
Personally I think it will be successful. It will return to the original structure of D&D but it will be more balanced and will draw in enough of those people to make it successful.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 6:32AM
#52
|
|
|
@Kalex_the_Omen
What you say is true if the game is pretty successful. If it is not successful then I could see another edition.
I don't think so. I suspect that if it isn't successful Hasbro will warehouse the brand and lay everyone off. I don't think WotC will be given another chance to spend lots of money on another edition if they produce another failure. The subtext of a lot of what has been said is that they are getting one last shot at this. That, if no other, is the reason they are taking their time and engaging the community so they get it right.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire Concerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 6:42AM
#53
|
|
|
 Good DM rules are better than great Player rules, imo. Game is going to be more free form, gave example of Str check to "intimidate" but could have been another check from another character to also "intimidate". Altering the rules would be a lot easier if WotC showed their math. I would be a lot more comfortable investing in another edition of D&D if the game theory and math was vetted by the community before it needing errata.  Awesome. This is all you need - anyone thinking you won't be able to move and then act... your why the DM needs to be one empowered. What's gonna happen, which is how it used to work, and as I understand how it works in lots of other RPGs is you say what you want to do and where you want to go on your turn (but not excusively in that order). Then the DM says okay, roll some funny dice. Or the DM says something dramatic happens. Or until you get the hang of it, the DM might say "that's too much stuff for one turn, narrow it down." You can do a lot more on your turn this way, in my experience. As for Minor Action healing, which was a great improvement imo, I believe they have said healing will come with other actions. A big healing spell, will be your action; but minor healing will be sort of free actioned into the class.  Sounds cool.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 7:12AM
#54
|
|
|
What's gonna happen, which is how it used to work, and as I understand how it works in lots of other RPGs is you say what you want to do and where you want to go on your turn (but not excusively in that order). Then the DM says okay, roll some funny dice. Or the DM says something dramatic happens. Or until you get the hang of it, the DM might say "that's too much stuff for one turn, narrow it down." You can do a lot more on your turn this way, in my experience.
Incidentally, this is a very specific type of approach to combat that modern D&D have steered pretty clearly away from while the vast majority of other systems currently employ with varying degrees of success.
Which is an hidden danger: D&D also thrived because it's the premiere mechanically clear, quasi-wargame RPG that encourages tactical play, optimization and granularity in stats and abilities. If they turn (back, one could argue) D&D to narrative combat and simplified tactical choices, they may win over a lot of people who didn't play D&D before (because it was too complex/clunky) but they will lose their competitive advantage towards all those people who favour D&D exactly because it's more tactically engaging and rich in mechanics than most other games.
One things we are recurrently mentioning (in my gaming group) is that on one hand D&D could use becoming a bit more like games like Savage Worlds; however, if it does, it will need to be better at it than SW or those other games, or else we'll just play the other options.
There's nothing quite like D&D in the gaming scene. If D&D strays too much from its staples - and tactical play has become one - then the competition it will face will be fierce. This isn't 1995 anymore.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 7:29AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Sep 15, 2007
|
The problem with Q's 1 & 2 is one of expectations. If players don't know what they are capable of (or competant at), most _won't_ attempt anything they don't think they can succeed at. They will tend to do what they know they are good at.
Point #1 is just something DMs do, and have done in every edition. It's OK to have wiggle room, but not so much that things will boil down to "What can I do well?" "Ask the DM!" Don't get me wrong; I like the idea of D&DN as a toolkit. But it will definitely need lots of advice and instruction, and for me I prefer the pagecount go toward mechanical crud I can't think up quickly. DM advice like this should be expounded in Red Box #3 and not quite as much in the DMG. Player advice should be in both.
Point #2 has similar issues if actions are not codified. This doesn't mean that everything needs to be spelled out, but there needs to be plenty of examples, so folks have a general idea of what stuff takes a "Standard", "Move", or "Free". Keep the categories. Give guidance on how to tweak 'em. ("Drinking one potion normally takes a Free action, but drinking more than one could take a Move action. Drinking a potion could take your Standard action if you are trying to climb a ladder. Drinking one potion could even take your entire turn if you are stuck in a giant spider's web!") The players need to know what they are capable of, even if it can be situational. This helps DM's, too, in that folks can not argue about what they can or can't do well.
Point #3: Drow: Boring. Ok, Ghaunadaur drow are fun. But drow are done to death. More Realm-shattering stuff that I have no interest in. Hopefully, Shar will finally stomp Lolth flat. And lead to a lot of tawdry Internet fiction and crude sketches!
D&DNext: HTFU Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 8:05AM
#56
|
|
|
Also, to the people bemoaning the loss of the minor action - is there any real difference between a minor action and a "free action on your turn"? The concept of the minor action may remain even without the listed action type. It's that long list of action types that the Ro3 answer says they're trying to cut back on.
If free actions are going to persist into D&D Next, why wouldn't they say so in the Rule of Three answer? Why list out a bunch of action types (in the question), and then exclude them all except "Action" and "Move." Why not put a little note near the end that says, "there will also be some 'free' actions"? But they didn't. They have specifically excluded mention of any other types of actions, free or otherwise, that players could take on their turn.
The problem I see with bundling in healing with other action effects is the added level of complexity to in combat actions. I can see the scenario now...
Player: I invoke my deity and cast "insert cool cleric spell" to smite the enemy!
DM: Don't forget you get to heal someone afterwards.
Player: What?
DM: "Insert cool cleric spell" also heals one of your allies.
Player: But nobody is injured yet? I guess I'll save the spell for later and um... I'll cast this other spell.
DM: That spell has healing too.
Player: Okay, I just swing my mace at the enemy.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 8:10AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Nov 13, 2004
|
Throwing away the Minor action is a sad thing. On the other hand, if retrieving/stowing items, picking up objects, opening/closing doors/chests, pulling/pushing levers, mounting/dismounting are just unlimited freebie non-actions, fine. I guess stuff like "Healing Word' could be a Free action, usable once per round (twice per encounter). Depending on what potions do, drinking a potion could be a once per turn Free action.
Seems to me that two codified actions is not expressly simpler than three, especially if there are going to be inevitable exceptions.
As many have said before, if you want to streamline the game so it runs faster, remove Opportunity actions and heavily restrict the number of Minors, Interrupts, and Reactions published. Combat won't be herky-jerky from "Wait, stop, that didn't just happen cuz of THIS" powers, and it won't crash to a halt when that special player has to scan his list of options for a use of his remaining Minor action.
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 8:25AM
#58
|
|
|
The problem I see with bundling in healing with other action effects is the added level of complexity to in combat actions. I can see the scenario now...
They never said they were bundling them. You are assuming facts not in evidence. Mike Mearls said in the Cleric Design Goals article, "You can imagine having a set of healing spells that allow you to aid your allies while still attacking." That doesn't say they are bundled. In fact, I imagined that the spell casting time was less than a round, and would allow you to also swing your mace, or possibly cast an attack spell if the casting time of that spell allows for it. Try not to cry wolf at eveything. It is becoming annoying.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster ExtraordinaireConcerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 8:26AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Well, it doesn't have to be free actions, my point is that there are other mechanical constructs that have similar results but different naming conventions.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 8:30AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
I've actually theorized that removing all duration buffs and making everything an immediate reaction that buffs your ally at that very moment, would greatly speed the game. If you forget to mention it then you forgot. Record keeping and decision paralysis slow down the game. I just removed record keeping except maybe hit points and equipment. It also encourages all players to pay attention at all times. If you are watching the tv in the other room you might miss your immediate reaction.
|
|
|
