|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 6:00PM
#191
|
|
|
I guess the real problem here that you guys dont seem to groke is that the designers already tried a game where everyone gets powers and it turns out that not everyone likes having boring set powers that you spam fight after fight (which of course must last long enough for you to completely spam all your powers).
A stronger emphasis on improvisation is infinitely better then the same old boring power spam of old.
And you're ignoring the very large 4e playerbase that prefers exciting powers over the same damn "Make something up!" excuses of old.
4e apparently proved that D&D cannot stand on one half of the playerbase alone. So if you get your way and run all the 4e influence out of this game then you're going to end up with a failure of a game. A game you'll enjoy, but a failure nonetheless.
You cannot demand that 4e players play the same damn game they've already rejected. That is stupid. All we're asking for is the option to play the way we want. That's hardly unreasonable.
Absolutely right.
Which is why it is so stupid to see so many people who seem to be expecting the first public playtest of DnD Next to be a finished product that is all things to everyone.
And then right after water is turned into wine, they will start complaining about how they wanted white instead of red. 
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012 DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour Spoiler:
Show
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
All characters have a story. Spoiler:
Show
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 6:01PM
#192
|
Date Joined:
May 20, 2005
|
They better not have to spend feats just to have the narrative control that the other classes get for free. That is the return of the feat tax.
Heh, imagine the uproar if the only way casters got spells is with feats.
Then it'd be Savage Worlds! Perish the thought!
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 6:07PM
#193
|
|
|
I guess the real problem here that you guys dont seem to groke is that the designers already tried a game where everyone gets powers and it turns out that not everyone likes having boring set powers that you spam fight after fight (which of course must last long enough for you to completely spam all your powers).
A stronger emphasis on improvisation is infinitely better then the same old boring power spam of old.
And you're ignoring the very large 4e playerbase that prefers exciting powers over the same damn "Make something up!" excuses of old.
4e apparently proved that D&D cannot stand on one half of the playerbase alone. So if you get your way and run all the 4e influence out of this game then you're going to end up with a failure of a game. A game you'll enjoy, but a failure nonetheless.
You cannot demand that 4e players play the same damn game they've already rejected. That is stupid. All we're asking for is the option to play the way we want. That's hardly unreasonable.
Absolutely right.
Which is why it is so stupid to see so many people who seem to be expecting the first public playtest of DnD Next to be a finished product that is all things to everyone.
And then right after water is turned into wine, they will start complaining about how they wanted white instead of red.
LOL, very true.
I actually think the general tone and organization of the 5e rules so far is fine. They are quite readable. There's a bit of "choose your terms carefully" that they should pay attention to at some point, but I just don't expect that in an early playtest. I think the rules can be fairly precise and presented nicely. 4e was just not the most elegant style. Clearly presentation was not considered a lot until the end, at least in terms of how the game would read. I think they've actually improved their writing a lot over at WotC in the last 2 years though. Certainly the later 4e books are quite well written in general.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 6:13PM
#194
|
|
|
That all being said I can definitely see a benefit to, in addition to having the type of fighter included in the playtest, also having other types of martial non-magical fighter-type characters who use other types of mechanics, such as maybe a martial character like a barbarian or berserker who spends rage points to do special attacks or a 4e warlord type who gets once-per-encounter or once-per day type tactical abilities or a monk type character who gets abilities that, when they spend an action to do them, get both a special type of attack and a special passive benefit from the stance they are in while doing that action. And of course some or all of those things could also be included in themes allowing fighters access to them as well.
I have something of a problem with that. The Fighter is supposed to be the master of arms, a highly-trained and experienced combatant. If the Fighter only can spam basic melee attacks while Barbarians and Warlords and Monks get tactically rich tactics, it makes the Fighter seem more like an NPC Warrior rather than a heroic adventurer who's out of the ordinary.
But some players like playing characters like that, so why should they be denied having a simple play style character they can use alongside having other options for players like yourself who want more complicated mechanics? If there's another fighter-like class that offers the sort of mechanics you want why not just play one of those?
It is easier to take out options than to add them. Get the 4E fighter, take out all his powers, take out all his feats, take out Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority, and he still plays quite adequately as a fighter (and he'll likely feel a lot like the pre-4E fighter), since he does have improvised actions, a boatload of equipment, and the most number of hit points (except when compared to the Warden).
And seriously, I always tell my players that it's alright to ignore their powers. In fact, one player of mine actually preferred that I keep her character sheet, since she knows what her character is capable of and doesn't want to do the math. It actually helped her RPing last night 
Honestly, I really would suggest that groups give the DMs their character sheets... if the DMs don't mind, that is 
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 12:27AM
#195
|
|
|
Every character can improvise. Every character can engage in contests. The only thing the fighter can do that others can't is hit things real good.
And once the Wizard gets her second Magic Missile at level 3, her average damage (no hit roll!) is close enough to the fighter that even that distinction seems less impressive.
Sure, and the wizard can shoot fire at multiple people, etc, as well.
We'll see if the fighter can stand up next to the wizard as an equal in combat once maneuver feats are available.
They better not have to spend feats just to have the narrative control that the other classes get for free. That is the return of the feat tax.
Themes are feat delivery, and fighters may be getting an extra theme, probably for just this reason.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 1:00AM
#196
|
|
|
Or the 7th level wizard. Why bother fighting them when they can just rest in a...secure shelter and regain all their murderation? If the wizard is 8th, then Rope Trick lets him save that 4th level slot for something else. Last, if we're using scrolls....does the wizard ever have no magic left?
Wow, metamagic that as instant and you could have some fun in battle...
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 1:08AM
#197
|
|
|
Is there any rule against monsters using improvised attacks?
Because when looking at the OPs list of actions, I couldn't help but think....
Imagine how the players are going to feel when the gang of low-level Orcs or that big, bad Ogre or Troll begins using those actions against them.
When the players are outnumbered 2:1 by Orcs and one Orc joint-locks each player and the other orcs begin to punch them or the Ogre just chokes out the cleric with one hand while using him as an improvised weapon against the rest of the party...
Somehow I think players are going to be a bit annoyed... but can anyone give a good reason why the DM shouldn't be doing these things?
Yes monster can use improvised actions. In second play test fighter had guardian theme,
both dwarves locked shields making then really hard to hit, DM use a hobgoblin to try and
cleric away but failed STR check. As for using PC as improvised weapon, that's what
happened for or group in 4e when a spider golem picked up our fighter then proceeded to
beat the warlord with fighter.
Well its good payback for all the times the warlord wielded the fighter against the monsters...
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 1:14AM
#198
|
|
|
If only this was actually true.
Well, when I say that the Fighter is boring all I get is an avalache of people telling me that I'm just not playing right because they have endless fun with it. Using this logic, the fact that I find the 4th edition Wizard to be hands down the most fun version of the class to grace the game means that Emwasick is right!
Well if Areleth says so, it must be correct.
Now what are you actually talking about?
The giant double standard that says it is 'creative' to play a fighter that can't do squat except hit things hard plus whatever any random character can do, vs it is 'boring' or whatever adjective any given critic happens to use play a wizard that might actually have some limits to what they can do. These arguments never held any water. If it is better for the fighter to be shorn of powers, then what makes it bad for the wizard to be shorn of pre-packaged spells or to have their spells do more limited things that they have to actually think about how to use to accomplish some goal?
But the problem is that is not what I said.
Give me a wizard that can improvise like a Fighter and I would have much more power (and fun) then one that is limited to casting Fireball of Magic Missile.
Pre-packaged spells are boring.
Emwasick completely missed the point.
Nopes! I'm completely getting the point, as always MANY people have claimed that wizards need lengthy spell descriptions written from an in-world perspective or else creativity is gone from casting. "4E spells just do damage + status. Casting is no longer creative - you just spam kewl powerz like a fighter" (except to a zone, or damage of a specific type, and with a brief description, and so on). In this atmosphere, I have come to learn that some players cannot be creative with abilities that merely have a name, an effect, and some fluff text. So why would anyone be able to be creative with just a basic attack?
Having abilities simply doesn't take away creativity. If that were true, we'd see old-E advocates demanding the removal of spells in order to free casters from their shackles.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 1:27AM
#199
|
|
|
I guess the real problem here that you guys dont seem to groke is that the designers already tried a game where everyone gets powers and it turns out that not everyone likes having boring set powers that you spam fight after fight (which of course must last long enough for you to completely spam all your powers).
A stronger emphasis on improvisation is infinitely better then the same old boring power spam of old.
And you're ignoring the very large 4e playerbase that prefers exciting powers over the same damn "Make something up!" excuses of old.
4e apparently proved that D&D cannot stand on one half of the playerbase alone. So if you get your way and run all the 4e influence out of this game then you're going to end up with a failure of a game. A game you'll enjoy, but a failure nonetheless.
You cannot demand that 4e players play the same damn game they've already rejected. That is stupid. All we're asking for is the option to play the way we want. That's hardly unreasonable.
Absolutely right.
Which is why it is so stupid to see so many people who seem to be expecting the first public playtest of DnD Next to be a finished product that is all things to everyone.
And then right after water is turned into wine, they will start complaining about how they wanted white instead of red.
We are not expecting that.
We ARE expecting the playtest to be the simple 'core' that everything can be built upon. We just aren't seing how they are going to build AEDU onto vancian and sorcerer casting, while at the same time not feat taxing the fighter to get AEDU maneuvers...
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 1:33AM
#200
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
Every character can improvise. Every character can engage in contests. The only thing the fighter can do that others can't is hit things real good.
And once the Wizard gets her second Magic Missile at level 3, her average damage (no hit roll!) is close enough to the fighter that even that distinction seems less impressive.
Sure, and the wizard can shoot fire at multiple people, etc, as well.
We'll see if the fighter can stand up next to the wizard as an equal in combat once maneuver feats are available.
They better not have to spend feats just to have the narrative control that the other classes get for free. That is the return of the feat tax.
Themes are feat delivery, and fighters may be getting an extra theme, probably for just this reason.
Though themes are, as stated, optional, so themes can't be a balancing part of the Fighter. He has to be balanced before themes.
|
|
|
