I won't bore anyone with details of our group's sessions, so I'll get right to the point(s).
Our group agreed that theme and background wasn't fun and didn't really bring anything to the table, so to speak. We preferred the freedoms found in 3.5 where your theme was what you made of it via skill selection, cross-classing and feats..etc
The characters are WAY overpowered, especially the rogue's sneak attack, which went from bad to worse in the second round of playtest material. Wizards, even with unlimited cantrips, are still relatively weak compared to others and need improving. Fighter paths in the second playtest material resemble those of 4th Ed, which instantly turned us off, as 4th Ed was not fun at all. Again, theme and background seem to hinder the player's freedom to customize their character.
Opening/closing doors, as well as picking up/dropping items as free actions should be changed. During our first session of play testing, the wizard, concerned about his AC, devised a plan to carry two heavy shields and drop them as a free action to cast spells, only to pick them up as a free action when he was finished. That doesn't sound fair, now does it?..lol
A mounted character is considered to have the high ground and advantage, right? So, a halfling on a dog has advantage? O.o
Advantage/disadvantage seemed ok at first, but ultimately is not a fun, nor effective mechanic.
Skill checks going off of the appropriate modifiers definitely has an old-school feel to it, but also antiquaited and outdated. =p I personally would prefer skill tables to be like 4th Ed, as it was easier to grasp, use and contributed to more fluid game-play. Not to mention, the skill table was the only good thing to come out of 4th Ed, really.
The major problem I had with Themes in this packet, is that they seem like class abilities that were cut from their respective classes (magic themes from caster classes, martial themes from martial classes, ...). Combined with prerequisites, it felt like you were forced to pick the themes that reinforced what you already did, and penalized if you want to pick one that went against the grain of what your class selection was.
The major problem I had with Themes in this packet, is that they seem like class abilities that were cut from their respective classes (magic themes from caster classes, martial themes from martial classes, ...). Combined with prerequisites, it felt like you were forced to pick the themes that reinforced what you already did, and penalized if you want to pick one that went against the grain of what your class selection was.
Meh.
I'd rather have 2 different options to combine, then 10 times as many classes.
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 Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong. 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. 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 Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer 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, only 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.
Agreed. This is exactly the problem we faced. It seems as if player freedom and/or discretion is being replaced by classic, or in this case cliche, interpretations of character party roles. I understand Wizards is trying to please everyone and bring the so-called "edition wars" to an end, but I doubt they will have any success in this pursuit. The majority of players I have spoken to that are also involved with the playtest agree that if things don't dramatically change, it looks like Pathfinder will be the better option. After having tested a little with the second packet of material only to find not much has changed, I'm beginning to agree with them.
Huh, interesting, the themes and specialties is what has me most excited about this game. I love how the backgrounds give you related skills and an ability you can use such as know where to find secret knowledge for a sage, or be able to pull military rank if your a soldier. Also, they proveded a list of the main skills so that you could have ideas for creating your own backgrounds. Remember, that has been a key point that developers have stated several times, that you can work with your DM to create new backgrounds, even new skills, to create characters with mechanical bonues tied to role play elements, and these choices are not limited to what is printed in a feat, class, or prestige class list. You can have any background that you can imagen, and work out the details of it with your DM. This is something I really like.
The specialties are basically feat trees that you pick. For example, dual wield. In 3.x, if you wanted to dual wield it basically meant you were buying into the two weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting, two weapon defense, etc etc. So, having all of those grouped under one choice, the dual wield specialty, makes sense. True, you can't branch out much and do weired whacky things, but that was one of the biggest problems with 3.x. YOu could grab 5 different books with feats and class ability combos and make stupid broken characters that did stupid things. This way, it will be less possible for players to break the game with annoying odd ball builds. Yeah, I know some players love that aspect of the game but to be honest, I almost allways saw such characters over ruled by DMS that desperatly wanted to restore balance to their game. So, I can live with this new system. (Also, I think they should work it into character advancment to where you can pick new specialties and certain levels. Maybe at 5th level, you can pick a new specialty and get its level one feat, for example.)
Granted, how specific spells and powers work might not be the best way, only alot of play testing will bear that out. But overall this seems like a good direction for the game to me.
Being able to create wacky, powerhouse characters was almost essential in 3.X, as the difficulty and obscurity of the material was limitless. It felt like a real, living world where adventuring was actually dangerous. It felt like D&D, at least in my opinion. 3.X didn't give early level characters too much power, you had to survive and consider your options carefully and your character progressed...all the while knowing that no matter how powerful you get, there will always be something that can destroy you. It was due to this concept that I didn't like 4E. The encounter, at will and daily powers and abilities made a first level character feel like a fifth and ultimately make for unbalanced campaigns. The skills were better, as I didn't care for class skills and felt they were too narrow in 3.X. Overall, I always saw 3.5 as the standard, the one they wouldn't top by straying from the formula, but many prefered the free handouts of 4E to the hardships of 3.X. My real fear is that the new edition with be another example of rewarding bad players and handing out overpowered abilities to low level characters simply so players can feel as if they're actually doing something. =P
