|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 9:07PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jan 25, 2007
|
So to start, I just had a horrifying revelation: I don't really care about DDN. Not one bit.
It's not that the mechanics don't look innovative and interesting (Advantage/Disadvantage is nice), or that it looks like it will be horribly unbalanced, but all of what i've seen so far just leaves me cold. Theres no oomph, theres no feel of 'I can't wait to try that', it's just...there. The flatter math is a step towards making a less swingy game, but somehow the whole system as presented in the playtest material just...does nothing for me. I don't feel the excitement; in fact, i'm getting turned off by how bland the game feels.
Yes, I know it's just a playtest, yes I know modules will make it a verry moddable game etc. But the problem with that is if the core of the game is forgettable and dull, I won't care enough to invest in it. And the whole 'modules' argument means zip because as we all know the core game will be what is most often played. As a 4E fan who in the wake of this release has come to appreciate 3.5 even more, I know what that translates to: I'll never again play a D&D game I like without having to search high and low for that one rare group that plays 'my' style of fantasy.
The feedback i'm seeing isn't very promising either. It seems like everyone is pushing to keep the game as old-school as possible, which means my 'heroic' characters, my cool and unique backstory, and my tendency toward trying to do the most awesome as opposed to 'i attack...again' will die, and I will stop playing D&D. I don't want to stop playing D&D, but it's going to happen whether I wanrt to or not if nobody runs a game I like.
The whole direction this is going, while it feels very retro-old-school-you-whippersnappers-get off my-lawn'ish...it has nothing I care about, and it's going to become the dominant version of D&D. Even Pathfinder appeals more to me than what i've seen so far, and I have no words for how unimpressed I am by Pathfinder.
So yeah...i'll check the next edition out when it's released, but if this is the core I can pretty much guarantee I won't buy more than the core books, and I definitely won't be playing it. Now for some constructive criticisms:
-There must, must, must be some of the innovations that made D&D fun for the 4E-loving crowd in this game. At-will powers are a start; please don't let grognardism strip them from the core of the game.
-Fix the bloody Fighter. I'm sorry, but it's boring. Not ineffective (yet) but boring. I don't care how much damage I can do if all i'm doing is standing there trading blows with monsters. I want to move around, or trip with my attack, or at least havve a bloody stance that lets me push on a hit or function kind of like a 4E Defender Fighter, or something better than 'lots of damage, and you can do it twice per round at level 3'. I long ago gave up on a Bo9S-style maneuvers system (my favorite thing ever produced by WotC) but at least don't take away my few cool at-will fighter powers. You can even call them something else to keep the grogs from shunning the game. And on a related nite 'you can improvise' is not an acceptable solution to this, so anyone who planned on saying it, please don't. I've heard all the arguments for 'improv is better and powers limit creativity', and I just disagree. Completely, totally disagree.
-Give each class a uniwue feel. I know, most 4E edition warriors love the unified AEDU mechanic, but I can take it or leave it. I want to see every class have a unique feel; I know i'll get flamed for it, but playing WoW a Paladin feels different from a Warrior or a Death Knight because thier playstyles are utterly different. They do the same things in different ways. A Warlock, Mage, and priest feel different when you play them, and yet all three do the same things. Make the DDN classes like that.
That's all that comes to mind right now...more will flow forth later.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 9:13PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Get on your feet, soldier! Get back in there and fight!
Drink a potion of endurance.
We have not even made it to through the first round.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 9:20PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jan 25, 2007
|
Get on your feet, soldier! Get back in there and fight!
Drink a potion of endurance.
We have not even made it to through the first round.
I'm not giving up on DDN by any means, but so far it's leaving me cold. Also, more thoughts on what i like/dislie/want to see:
-Flatter math with lateral expansion. This is a good thing IMHO, but the lateral expansion needs to be significant to hook me in. I can even accept being a weakling at level 1, but once I hit level 2 or 3 options had better start opening up like someone turned on the lights in a toystore. I do NOT want to wait to be a hero, but I can tolerate feeling fresh off the boat for a level while I get a feel for my character.
- Healing. The 'fully healed by a nights rest' is too much even for me as a default, but my caveat is any party with a healer shouldn't have to worry much about thier HP unless they are in a very bad spot. I could live with recovering, say, one-quarter of my combat effectiveness from a long rest. I could also deal with a characters recovery being based entirely upon his own hardiness (con) and availability of healing options such as a Cleric, someone with skill in medicine/herbalism, etc.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 9:27PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jan 25, 2007
|
-Fix the bloody Fighter. I'm sorry, but it's boring. Not ineffective (yet) but boring. I don't care how much damage I can do if all i'm doing is standing there trading blows with monsters. I want to move around, or trip with my attack, or at least have a bloody stance that lets me push on a hit or function kind of like a 4E Defender Fighter, or something better than 'lots of damage, and you can do it twice per round at level 3'. I long ago gave up on a Bo9S-style maneuvers system (my favorite thing ever produced by WotC) but at least don't take away my few cool at-will fighter powers. You can even call them something else to keep the grogs from shunning the game. And on a related nite 'you can improvise' is not an acceptable solution to this, so anyone who planned on saying it, please don't. I've heard all the arguments for 'improv is better and powers limit creativity', and I just disagree. Completely, totally disagree.
And another caveat to this: I can deal with the Fighter existing as a basic no-powers, no-maneuvers simplistic class IF and ONLY if a balanced powers and cool toys equivalent also exists in the core player book. Something that looks like the Bo9S Warblade would be entirely acceptable, but I would like it to be balanced with the simple fighter so it doesn't get labeled as 'weeboo fightmagic' and universally banned by 'real roleplayers'.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 9:32PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
You do realize they said that they would, yes?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 9:39PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2004
|
It seems like everyone is pushing to keep the game as old-school as possible, which means my 'heroic' characters, my cool and unique backstory, and my tendency toward trying to do the most awesome as opposed to 'i attack...again' will die, and I will stop playing D&D.
What make you say that? My own feeling is that lighter rules would help encourage "cool and unique" play, but it seems to strike you as the opposite?
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 9:42PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2005
|
I'm sort of in the same boat. I went through the playtest; I've gone through it more than once. I then went through it using a different adventure than Caves of Chaos. I don't feel negative toward the game; I'd say there are things I liked. However, at the end of the day, it didn't pull a strong reaction out of me. I'm remaining hopeful for the future, but -at the same time- I'm currently feeling kinda 'meh.' Much like the OP, the game looks ok, but I'm not currently seeing anything that motivates me to spend money on it.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 9:45PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jan 25, 2007
|
You do realize they said that they would, yes?
I know, believe me I have been following the news related to DDN's development with laser-like intensity. The question is, will it look like something I want, or will it be the Fighter with a few special effects that still don't approach the level of Wuxia coolness the Warblade had. this is where at-will or rechargeable powers come in; I want to be able to use my cool trick repeatedly without an arbitrary daily recharge method, or having to wait until I rest. This is another area where I am in line with fans of previous editions. I was cool with 4E's way of doing it, but something more believable or 'simulationist' would be cool too, maybe even better. The important thing is that I'm never just basic attacking because i'm out of my character-defining special tricks.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 9:47PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2012
|
I see your point. I have been playing D&D since 2nd edition. And in every edition so Far I have rewriten a couple core elements of the game building my own customized system from the game. Now that I see the 5th edition rules, it is stripped to the bare bones. It can be added to but that takes time, maybe all the way to 6th edition before it gets flushed out. What makes Pathfinder so appealing is that it gave every class something cool, and each character can take there own cool special path of customized powers. They also get cool unique customized powers as low as lv 2.
I may not play 5th edition, I have rewritten 4th edition classes from the ground up giving them my own at-will, encounter and daily powers. Thats what I love about 4th edition it's easy to make new powers swap out old ones and completely change how a class feels. as a DM It's great because I get to the run the games I like and they play how I want them too.
I'll just list my favorite points of each edition I have played.
2nd Edition
Multi-classing in 2nd edition was over powered but it had the "Feel" that I want for my games. You are good at both classes but not the best at either. It is a shame 2nd edition multi-classes was so overpowered. In 3rd and 4th edition I have made my own house rules to bring back this feel. I would like to see this in 5th edition as well.
3rd Edition
Third really streamlined simple bonuses and penalties and killed alot of unessisary tables in 2nd edition. Third introduced Fort, Ref and Will, feats and the swift action allowing you rare powers that you could use in combat to give you that extra omph.
Alot of the problem I had with 2nd and 3rd is that it created one trick ponies. You made a character that was good at something and that is all they did. Grapplers, Trippers, Damage Dealers, Save or Die guy.
Now I have enjoyed playing a grappling barbaian and other such one trick ponies but that kind of character played right frustrates other players and DM's they are hard to control and very repetative. (Like I think a 7 Int barb should act) But this kind of play style is not for everyone.
4th Edition
Fourth made lv one playable again. I have always hated lv 1 and 2 in 2E and 3E, it was just so painful waiting to get a 2nd lv spell or class ability that made your character what it was. In 4th you have a host of unique powers at your disposal. 4th made the Fighter, Ranger and the Rogue very cool classes, and no longer one trick ponies. Yes the encounter and Daily limits did not make that much sense but it gave everyone options and as players we want options. it also gave us reaction powers. I love those. It was no longer save or avoid it was I use special move hit you in the face and interupt you attack or run away or heal myself. 4th also streamlined attack bonus to defenses with Fort Ref and Will acting like AC. So you never had the situation of auto succeed or auto fail.
It will be very hard for 5th to recapture this feel, with all classes
5th edition
So far I see 5th is giving more HP at lv one. Making it more playable, larger death door HP graces no longer stuck at the simple -10. But 5th does seem to be ignoreing 4th completly. I have noticed the monster bonus to hit are not that high compared to how HP is scaling. I think 5th is leaning towards controling bonuses more than 2E and 3E.
Will 5E allow the rogue to dodge an attack and make it hit the enemy? Will 5th give fighters Counter attack or blocking powers or Rangers the mobility powers allowing them to Skirmish like they do in 4th?
And if they do get these powers will we have to wait to high lv just to see them?
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 10:00PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jan 25, 2007
|
It seems like everyone is pushing to keep the game as old-school as possible, which means my 'heroic' characters, my cool and unique backstory, and my tendency toward trying to do the most awesome as opposed to 'i attack...again' will die, and I will stop playing D&D.
What make you say that? My own feeling is that lighter rules would help encourage "cool and unique" play, but it seems to strike you as the opposite?
You ave it exactly right. Improv is great; I do it a lot. But having my signature tricks codified doesn't stop me from improvising, it just lets me improvise with the added bonus of being able to improvise with my cool tricks. That's the thing that is key for 4E fans - powers weren't straitjackets, they just let you be even better at what you do. More options does not in any way hurt improvisation; I have used the 4E Fighter at-will Tide of Iron in more ways than I can remember, and described it in endless variations of 'I hit you and make you move'. Finding new and interesting ways to toss enemies around like ragdolls never gets old. Which inadvertently reminded me of another point.
-This one is purely my opinion and is backed by no facts whatsoever: I never had a problem with combats in 4E or any edition being too long, but I can see how others might. While 4e did tend to run a tad long because of the inflated monster HP, I think it was close to the mark. Reducing monster hp in relation to PC damage output by about 1/4 of where 4e had it would be about right I think. About 6 turns should be the goal, though obviously that's a fairly arbitrary number that depends on how long it takes a player to finish a turn on average.
|
|
|
