|
2 years ago ::
Oct 20, 2011 - 3:09PM
#61
|
|
|
other than keeping the paladin without the must be LG crap.
nothing other than keeping it compatible with 4e and or 3.x.
other than that I have no plans to buy 5e.
that and there is no 5e.
Paladins are not all LG now... Paladins are more like cosmic, spiritual champions of their faith, religions, spiritualities...
I said other than keeping them with out it.
meaning how they have it now.
also
if they do a 5E
I want the following:
NO Deities in the phb or dmg, keep it setting nuetral and the only way to do it is no deites in them. keep them in the setting books.
I also want the main classes( fighter,paladin,rogue,cleric,wizard,monk,sorcerer,barbarian,bard, ranger,cleric,druid) in one book the invoker and the others can be in another.
thats just me though
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 20, 2011 - 3:13PM
#62
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2004
|
other than keeping the paladin without the must be LG crap.
nothing other than keeping it compatible with 4e and or 3.x.
other than that I have no plans to buy 5e.
that and there is no 5e.
Paladins are not all LG now... Paladins are more like cosmic, spiritual champions of their faith, religions, spiritualities...
I said other than keeping them with out it.
meaning how they have it now.
also
if they do a 5E
I want the following:
NO Deities in the phb or dmg, keep it setting nuetral and the only way to do it is no deites in them. keep them in the setting books.
I also want the main classes( fighter,paladin,rogue,cleric,wizard,monk,sorcerer,barbarian,bard, ranger,cleric,druid) in one book the invoker and the others can be in another.
thats just me though
I disagree. Why not offers a default pantheon, with the mention at the start of the books - 'suggested default fluff etc blablabla'.
It's nice when you don't have inspiration to have some default fluff to help.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 20, 2011 - 3:26PM
#63
|
|
|
because then it becomes attached to a setting and that is one thing where 4e core went off the wall.
when especially when posts come up wanting to know how to use the RAven Queen in Eberron/Forgotten Realms/Dark Sun/ Dragonlance/ etc when each of the named settings has a named deity that deals with the dead/death.
better off to leave them out of the phb and put them in the campaign guides
this IS how I prefer it, however we are each entitled to our own opinions
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 20, 2011 - 3:27PM
#64
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2004
|
because then it becomes attached to a setting and that is one thing where 4e core went off the wall.
when especially when posts come up wanting to know how to use the RAven Queen in Eberron/Forgotten Realms/Dark Sun/ Dragonlance/ etc when each of the named settings has a named deity that deals with the dead/death.
better off to leave them out of the phb and put them in the campaign guides
this IS how I prefer it, however we are each entitled to our own opinions
PoL thing work well.
Nothing stop you from removing them for YOUR stuff.
Everyone win with the current model.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 20, 2011 - 3:30PM
#65
|
|
|
heehehe if that was true, then we would NOT be having this discussion about 5e...
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 20, 2011 - 5:53PM
#66
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2005
|
On the DM side of the house, I would keep the monster and encounter design paradigm. Simple monster statblocks, relativity of monster power vs player level, minion/normal/elite/solo, adding up encounter xp total vs party level to determine difficulty, etc. I have DM'ed a ton, and the whole thing just really works and was a huge improvement over what came before.
THIS!
I have to third this. I generally like and prefer 4e, though i have some strong reservations with how some aspects have been handled, but the one category where i feel they truly nailed it is with monster/encounter building. I recently had someone ask me why i don't DM a game of [certain other DnD version] in order to attract some 4e haters and i frankly told him "no way in hell am i going back to trying to build encounters like that."
There is no more necessity to eyeball monsters and encounters to try to gauge what may or may not be a challenge for the party. No more "oh ****, this monster is supposed to be an appropriate CR but in reality its horribly weak or overpowered." Throwing together a combination of monster of level x at the drop of hat works amazingly well this edition and its a godsend for DMing.
Ironcially, i now play in a game of [certain other DnD version] run by that same guy. He seems sort of frustrated by the way the party just runs roughshod over his encounters and "boss" characters, even when he designs the encoutners to be ones where the party is overwhelmed and is supposed to run away! He literally said something to the effect of "Guess they should have added something like elites and solos to [certain other DnD version]".
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 20, 2011 - 5:57PM
#67
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2004
|
heehehe if that was true, then we would NOT be having this discussion about 5e...
Fluff is NOT the (major) issues.
And there is always a next edition in work for any game, unless things go elsewhere anyway.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 20, 2011 - 6:40PM
#68
|
|
|
1. I want to see the standardization factor ported over, i like that all classes are the same complexity so player's can play what they want, as opposed to how much work they want to do. They don't have to all use the exact same systems, but i want them to be balanced (for equal contribution assuming equal level of optimization) and at the same level of complexity, if they want to vary the level of complexity, they should rely on Mearl's complexity system or something, not class based complexity.
2. Simple monster and encounter design, in 4E it's incredibly easy to balance encounters- atleast compared to other versions of DND. My only gripe is that the game's combats as a whole could be more streamlined, faster, even with MM3 monsters i find encoutners drag, and while i'm far from great at designing fast encounters, it could be an easier feat (referring to the whoel combat system in general.
3. The sheer number of diverse archetypes, the ability to find something everyone loves is one of my favorite things about DND, and with well-balanced classes, extensive support for most classes, and finally a great deal of options within a class all serve to make it great. It would be even better if we could see even more new archetypes and options, inspired by modern fantasy, anime fantasy, etc.
3.5. I'm making this seperate since it's something i kinda like about essentials- you can address a large number of archetypes within a class, so long as you make sure it gets the mechanical attention it deserves, as well as the fluff, and difference in feel. This is especially useful if a future edition has resource management systems (like Mana, lets say) that could serve as a similar root. I want to see fluid translations of characters gaining power, for example, it would be great if a wizard could make a demon pact, and make their old spells stronger/different in addition to new ones (as would be the case with multiclass/hybrid)
-for example, lets say we have the wizard base class, lets say they take an option (i'm going to recommend a level related chocie of class feature, i guess, with branching options based on prerequisites) called "Eldritch Pact" the options they find within this sub-class, or tree, alter their current set of abilities- we get to see that at some sort of cost (health, or healing surges could be appropriate) a demon based pact could make their fireball spell black flames (assuming you don't reflavor it) and more importantly, add some sort of nasty effect, like that it creates a zone that can be sustained for the length of tiem the caster desires (whereas it might instead be an uncontrolled amount of time). but anyway, i'm dragging this on- maybe i'll post a thread about it, moving on.
Now, things i want out-
1. the sheer level of dragging busywork complexity, from overly-complicated powers to the sheer number of effects and special conditions that need to be tracked and bog down my game all the damn time. Simpler math (in regards to defenses, stats, and what gets calculated into a power), simpler status conditions, clearer language, would all serve to improve the game.
2. make out-of-combat rules clearer and potentially less influential, it's hectic enough trying to deal with skill checks and DC's, and compromising between the NPC's personality, what the player actually said, and their awesome check. Roleplaying doesn't need as much rollplay.
|
|
|
