|
1 year ago ::
Apr 09, 2012 - 8:09AM
#1
|
|
|
The video can be found here. I couldn't find a thread on this yet, so here it is. Discuss.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 09, 2012 - 8:23AM
#2
|
|
|
A few things I'd like to point out to start this discussion. The first thing that annoyed me was right around 7:50, as it seemed like Mearls was trying to justify displacing the burden of fixing rules "holes" onto the DM. It seemed like he was trying to excuse bad design, even if that maybe wasn't his intent. Later he did talk about how modularity should allow DMs to create the exact game that they want, and I do like the sound of that, but I will not tolerate sloppy rules that the DM can "fix." Modularity needs to make it easier for a DM to plan for and run a game, and rules that need fixing would negate this advantage. Hopefully I'm overreacting here.
Also, around 16:40 Monte mentions that Fireball should be the best spell, which reeks of bias. I don't want any spells intentionally designed to be "better." You shouldn't have to sacrifice power level for being anything other than a blaster Wizard. I would be fine with something like Charm Person (the spell he compared Fireball to) to be more difficult to use in combat, but perhaps more effective out of combat. In that case the comparison would be a little murkier, with CP's lower power level being compensated for with utility elsewhere.
Overall though a lot of what was said gives me reason to be optimistic. I'm really hoping that the open playtest will be available soon because at this point even "good news" feels pretty empty without anything to back it up. It does sound like the playtests will have a pretty significant impact, and I'm ready to start picking things apart!
Also, I was surprised by Mearls' scientifically accurate understanding of natural selection; when things "evolve" they don't get objectively "better," but are merely adapting to current environmental pressures, and I think a game system that mimics that (effectively) has a good chance of being successful.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 09, 2012 - 11:35AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
@alien270
That other guy wasn't Monte. Don't remember who he was but he's not Monte.
I think the Fireball was a Mearls attempt at humor. The other guy right off said he wanted his Charm Monster to be equally good.
I definitely think they were talking DM options and not DM needs to fix. Some people though think Vancian casters are inherently broke so in those cases of course they will think the DM needs to fix them by removing them :-). Not saying you think that either. I don't either. But some do.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 09, 2012 - 11:45AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
@Emerikol: here's one.  I liked what I've heard. There were a couple rough spots, such as choosing to talk of the wizard of all classes when debating out of combat utility. The wizard is the class that, throughout editions, was on top of out of combat utility (4E too, thanks to his focus on rituals; you might think that's not enough and I believe you are right: all classes should have more). I'd like to see some thought for classes like the fighter or the cleric and their utility in out of combat, non-healing situations. 
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Ideas for 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 09, 2012 - 12:56PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Good video. They are consistent in their message on Next's degisn goals and philosophy. Makes me kinda miss the Podcasts Jeremy and Rodney were giving us. @alien270
That other guy wasn't Monte. Don't remember who he was but he's not Monte.
It was Jeremy Crawford.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 09, 2012 - 1:23PM
#6
|
|
|
A few things I'd like to point out to start this discussion. The first thing that annoyed me was right around 7:50, as it seemed like Mearls was trying to justify displacing the burden of fixing rules "holes" onto the DM. It seemed like he was trying to excuse bad design, even if that maybe wasn't his intent.
I don't see it like that at all. He was talking about DM empowerment. And that he should have enough power to make a bad system work.
guides
Show
my builds
Show
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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 09, 2012 - 1:34PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2011
|
Disappointed to hear it was only around 10-20% through development, had hoped it was a bit further along!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 09, 2012 - 5:21PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
Regarding the whole "A good DM can make up for a bad system" thing, I don't think they are implying that they plan to make a bad system. The point was to illustrate how important the DM is to the game. And what they plan to do is build into the system tools and modules to, as they said, allow the DM to build his campaign just like players build their characters. In other words, they are assuming that DMs by default like to change the way the game works to make it ideal for them and their group. And to make this easiest, they are building in the tools to help every DM do this.
I also liked when they talked about empowering the DM. I remember that topic from one of the blogs or articles a while back, and at the time I didn't really understand why it was important. It seemed like they just wanted to have the DM be the ultimate power again. But listening to them talk it is clear that this isn't the case. Instead, they want to bring the DM back up a bit. I think we have all been in games where the Players corrected or questioned the DM. "No, an orc can't do that", "What spell what that? I don't think he is high enough level to do that", etc. 3rd especially, because NPCs, monsters, and PCs were all built using the exact same rules and system, but even in 4E I have seen it happen.
I feel the game works best when the DM is free to do things without really worrying about the rules. If you need the enemy wizard to have a certain spell effect, you shouldn't have to limit yourself to the spells in the PHB. The legendary blacksmith should be able to be killed by a single hit from an orc if the DM wants. Etc.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 12:57AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2012
|
A few things I'd like to point out to start this discussion. The first thing that annoyed me was right around 7:50, as it seemed like Mearls was trying to justify displacing the burden of fixing rules "holes" onto the DM. It seemed like he was trying to excuse bad design, even if that maybe wasn't his intent.
I don't see it like that at all. He was talking about DM empowerment.
That's exactly what 'empowerment' is. Empowerment is a higher up giving you more to do but no more time to do it in or money for doing it. I can't tell you how many times some director or vp 'empowered' me to fix his mistakes, if not damn-fool stupid things done intentionally.
Makes me glad to be retired. It's hilarious, in a depressing way, to think that particular bit of corporate BS has followed me into my old hobby.
I never suspected that D&D might have been bought by some unit of Hasbro and given the whole suits and cubicles and ISO-9000 treatment.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 2:37AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
I just want to know how Ability Scores (the core, as it should be, IMO) will be implemented in 5th Ed, before anything else.
Not sure at this point if they're going with the 3rd/4th Ed route.
|
|
|
