so you are making a system that is slower and more convulted full of loopholes...congratulations, you have made combat "slower" than 4e... I am sorry, but all this just going to make on table discussion/fighting/debate...and that's the worst thing a system can do
All classes need to be of approximately equal complexity and viability.
It is easy to think that all classes should be of equal complexity. I agree with equal viability. Not in every situation mind you. Some classes should be more viable in combat, some while exploring, some during npc interaction.
Back to equal complexity. It is a fact that equal complexity contributed to turning a huge portion of the player base away from 4E. Given that, it cannot be the best option for 5E.
Shane
Not really, no. Equal complexity had nothing whatsoever to do with that. The problem was overall complexity.
The truth of the matter is that 4th edition is a much better designed and presented game than 3.x. So what went wrong in the brains of oh so many people?
Well, the trouble is that, fundamentally, a lot of people never really understood 3.x. When they saw 4th edition, they could SEE the mechanics - they could understand that it was a game. They could see the complexity, they could see that it was very tactical, they could see that it was... complicated!
But no one likes to say "I am intimidated by the complexity", people will almost never admit to being stupid or ignorant, or even something that might even be CONSTRUED as them saying that they are stupid or ignorant. So they will come up with some sort of reason why the thing is BAD. You can tell when people do this because, fundamentally, their brains run off the logic tracks and start saying nonsense.
Good examples include people who say "It is like a video game" (see also: Neverwinter Nights, a video game based on 3.x - and the fact that people levelled the same thing at 3.0!), "It is combat centric" (3.x was also combat centric, as was every other iteration of the game), and similar things. You can tell that they aren't actually thinking logically and are rather making up some sort of reason why they dislike it because the complaints they have apply to something else that they like, which means that their complaints are not addressing the true issue. This is actually incredibly common, and is why you have to be incredibly careful about player feedback - players might know something is wrong, but they will almost never actually be able to tell you WHAT is wrong, especially when it is something very fundamental, such as complexity level.
So if 4th edition's complexity was too much, was 3.x right? Well, no. The trouble is that most people really don't understand 3.x, and never really did understand it. 3.x is very complicated, and in some ways is even more complicated than 4th edition (casters in general are an utter mess, and there are a lot of interactions in the game which lead to really weird outcomes). However, because the players never really processed the game in that way - indeed, never realized that they weren't really playing 3.x, but rather a dumbed down version of the game that they could understand - it never struck them as overcomplicated. But when they had to learn a whole new system from the ground up, they rebelled. One major point I've noticed is playmats. If you like fighting on a mat, you'll think 4th edition is awesome. If you don't like it, then you'll probably not like it. But 3rd edition was ALSO a game designed to be played on a playmat; a lot of people simply didn't do so, a standard example of people playing a dumbed-down version of 3.x.
Had WotC actually released their D&DI toolset on or shortly after release, Pathfinder never would have gone on to be as successful as those tools would have subsumed some of the complexity, making it more backend stuff that players didn't REALLY have to think about too much. Sadly, WotC failed to do so, and thus they left the opportunity for Paizo to capitalize on the nerd rage and grab some of those folk, the folk who were intimidated by 4th edition, claiming that they didn't really need to learn much new about Pathfinder, thus allowing those who were playing dumbed down 3.x to continue to do so, but to call it Pathfinder (even though most of these folk are playing something between dumbed down 3.x and dumbed down Pathfinder now).
This is the danger of not actually learning from what has come before. The actual flaw with 4th edition wasn't the changes it made from 3rd edition but rather the fact that the game was too complicated already, and changing so much of the game made people realize that the game WAS complicated, and thus some folk balked at adopting the new edition. Its a much better game than 3rd edition, but the fact of the matter is that it still has a serious flaw - complexity - which it not only didn't fix but possibly made worse (though that is debatable).
There's nothing wrong with playing dumbed down 3.x or dumbed down pathfinder. There's nothing wrong with disliking the complexity of 4th edition. But I think that very few people who were reluctant to make the transition who can actually explain why they dislike 4th edition - they will complain but their complaints are non-specific or apply to 3rd edition as well, which means that obviously their true issue lies elsewhere. And many simply state that they are vaguely dissatisfied, that the game doesn't sit right with them, which is almost inevitably the sign of deep level problems that players are not equipped to address, because very few people think like designers have to to do their jobs properly.
I can tell you for a fact that the absolute balance and parity of complexity that you advocate is one of the reasons that I did not enjoy 4E.
Is your stance really that my position is wrong because I have been gaming wrong this entire time and did not fully understand the 3.5? And that I can't see how right you are because my play experience is so flawed and based on so many misassumptions?
I hope that D&D Next can be a game you enjoy man. God bless you.
Shane
Help make Combat Mastery happen: If you like the idea of Combat Mastery, as outlined below, for fighters copy it onto your signature and add interesting combat maneuvers to the list. Two new examples could be throat punch or spit in eye.
Combat Mastery: When a Fighter performs combat maneuvers such as bull rush, disarm, sunder, trip, hip toss, eye poke, ball kick, hair drag, blind with sand, slide down banister, swing on chandalier, walk on barrel, use enemy as shield, interpose self in front of arrow trying to kill wizard, intimidate, pick up kobold by the neck, etc, the minimum die result is 10.
Fighter Combat Maneuvers: On a given round the fighter can bull rush, disarm, sunder, trip, hip toss, eye poke, ball kick, hair drag, blind with sand, slide down banister, swing on chandalier, walk on barrel, use enemy as shield, interpose self in front of arrow trying to kill wizard, intimidate, etc, in place of his/her move action. This is a nonattack action that might cause the fighter's opponent to be rendered prone, unarmed, blind for a round, etc, or otherwise grant the fighter advantage or his/her opponent disadvantage as the Fighter sees fit.
well at this point we only saw a small hint of the syetem.
they said there where going to be characters at difrent complexity levels. just like there are in 4th edition if you count essentials as being 4th edition.
I hope that the figter we saw here is the equivilent of the essentials slayer class. And that we will see the 4th edition fighter ( weaponmaster ) make it's apearance as one of the more complex characters.
so you are making a system that is slower and more convulted full of loopholes...congratulations, you have made combat "slower" than 4e... I am sorry, but all this just going to make on table discussion/fighting/debate...and that's the worst thing a system can do
I can see that we come at this from very different play styles.
In my game Combat Mastery and Combat Maneuvers as I advocate would go something like this . . . .
DM: Aleric (the fighter), the orc that you sliced open last round is dying at your feet, across the room another orc bellows in rage at the sight of his fallen comrade and charges toward you, his axe held aloft to chop at you. Aleric: That chair is still behind me right? DM: Yes, still standing where you were sitting in it. Aleric: Ok, I grab the chair a sling it into the charging orc's feet and then attack him with my sword when he gets close. DM: Make a Dex Combat Maneuver check. Aleric: (rolls) I got a 14. DM: Ok. The chair tumbles across the floor and causes the orc to stumble in his charge. He will have disadvantage on his attack or you advantage on yours, your choice.
Help make Combat Mastery happen: If you like the idea of Combat Mastery, as outlined below, for fighters copy it onto your signature and add interesting combat maneuvers to the list. Two new examples could be throat punch or spit in eye.
Combat Mastery: When a Fighter performs combat maneuvers such as bull rush, disarm, sunder, trip, hip toss, eye poke, ball kick, hair drag, blind with sand, slide down banister, swing on chandalier, walk on barrel, use enemy as shield, interpose self in front of arrow trying to kill wizard, intimidate, pick up kobold by the neck, etc, the minimum die result is 10.
Fighter Combat Maneuvers: On a given round the fighter can bull rush, disarm, sunder, trip, hip toss, eye poke, ball kick, hair drag, blind with sand, slide down banister, swing on chandalier, walk on barrel, use enemy as shield, interpose self in front of arrow trying to kill wizard, intimidate, etc, in place of his/her move action. This is a nonattack action that might cause the fighter's opponent to be rendered prone, unarmed, blind for a round, etc, or otherwise grant the fighter advantage or his/her opponent disadvantage as the Fighter sees fit.
Aleric: Ok, I grab the chair a sling it into the charging orc's feet and then attack him with my sword when he gets close.
you do know this isen't alouwed in the gametest rules right ? during a turn you can make 1 action and move your speed.
so he could fling the chair, but not fling the chair and attack in the same round. as finging the chair and attacking are both actions and you only have one action in a round see the section on actions and improvised actions.
I can tell you for a fact that the absolute balance and parity of complexity that you advocate is one of the reasons that I did not enjoy 4E.
Is your stance really that my position is wrong because I have been gaming wrong this entire time and did not fully understand the 3.5? And that I can't see how right you are because my play experience is so flawed and based on so many misassumptions?
That wasn't my point at all. You can't exactly play make-believe wrong, now can you? I mean, that sounds kind of ridiculous, right?
No, the point was that most people don't actually play 3.x, but play a version of 3.x which is "dumbed down" - that is to say, simpler than the actual rules of 3.x. Most people play with a very limited spell list, for instance, not even considering spells outside of that list, even if they would be effective, or don't realize what they can do with spells like Alter Self or Polymorph. Many people don't play 3.x with a playmat, which in and of itself removes a great deal of the positioning inherent to the game, makes area of effects more vague, changes how well a character can cover a hallway and prevent people from getting past them... Many people hardly ever grapple. Many people misinterpret or even omit some rules from the game.
All of this changes how the game works in a very fundamental way, and makes the game simpler because there are (seemingly) far fewer options. This doesn't mean that they are "doing it wrong" (well, save in the sense that they aren't actually playing by the rules of 3.x). The point is, after all, to have fun, and if the full game isn't fun to them but some limited subsection is, what am I supposed to say?
But it is important to understand that they ARE doing this, even if they don't realize that they are doing it.
Aleric: Ok, I grab the chair a sling it into the charging orc's feet and then attack him with my sword when he gets close.
you do know this isen't alouwed in the gametest rules right ? during a turn you can make 1 action and move your speed.
so he could fling the chair, but not fling the chair and attack in the same round. as finging the chair and attacking are both actions and you only have one action in a round see the section on actions and improvised actions.
Under the playtest rules as currently written, yes. But my proposed rule module would allow the Fighter to substitute a combate maneuver for his move. See in my signature under Fighter Combat Maneuvers.
Shane
Help make Combat Mastery happen: If you like the idea of Combat Mastery, as outlined below, for fighters copy it onto your signature and add interesting combat maneuvers to the list. Two new examples could be throat punch or spit in eye.
Combat Mastery: When a Fighter performs combat maneuvers such as bull rush, disarm, sunder, trip, hip toss, eye poke, ball kick, hair drag, blind with sand, slide down banister, swing on chandalier, walk on barrel, use enemy as shield, interpose self in front of arrow trying to kill wizard, intimidate, pick up kobold by the neck, etc, the minimum die result is 10.
Fighter Combat Maneuvers: On a given round the fighter can bull rush, disarm, sunder, trip, hip toss, eye poke, ball kick, hair drag, blind with sand, slide down banister, swing on chandalier, walk on barrel, use enemy as shield, interpose self in front of arrow trying to kill wizard, intimidate, etc, in place of his/her move action. This is a nonattack action that might cause the fighter's opponent to be rendered prone, unarmed, blind for a round, etc, or otherwise grant the fighter advantage or his/her opponent disadvantage as the Fighter sees fit.
I can see that we come at this from very different play styles.
In my game Combat Mastery and Combat Maneuvers as I advocate would go something like this . . . .
DM: Aleric (the fighter), the orc that you sliced open last round is dying at your feet, across the room another orc bellows in rage at the sight of his fallen comrade and charges toward you, his axe held aloft to chop at you. Aleric: That chair is still behind me right? DM: Yes, still standing where you were sitting in it. Aleric: Ok, I grab the chair a sling it into the charging orc's feet and then attack him with my sword when he gets close. DM: Make a Dex Combat Maneuver check. Aleric: (rolls) I got a 14. DM: Ok. The chair tumbles across the floor and causes the orc to stumble in his charge. He will have disadvantage on his attack or you advantage on yours, your choice.
And i can see that turn taking more than 3 minutes just to do one action...and that's with your very utopic scenario, because 8/10 will lead to on table discussion of DM and player disagreeing on what can be done or not when the rules are left open like that.. it is DM or player fault's...nope, is because of how rules are full of holes that happened...
and edwin_su, his example is the rule he made of fighters having a class feature that allow them to have a "free action" contest during combat once per turn. And i don't really care if people try to patch up all the holes on the current draft by themselves...the playtest to my eyes is invalidated when they said we can't play test online with virtual tabletop softwares...you know how hard is to find groups of people when you live on a country that doesn't have a gaming store at all?... playing online thru maptools is the only way i can currently play D&D...wish btw is made easier by using squares and grid when using those softwares... (4e works wonderful with those softwares), but for some reason wtc decide to say we are not important, even when ALOT of people i know online play it online...people from all over the world, playing together...
There's no confusion here. I quite understand what you want, it's just like that in 4e. It is also one of the major reasons I never liked 4e. Sorry, but a bunch of carbon copy classes aren't interesting at all to me.
If that is your understanding, then you are still confused.
