|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 11:28AM
#461
|
Date Joined:
May 14, 2012
|
In summary, I think the edition wars really truly began with 4E. Why? Up until 3.5, the beauty of AD&D was the unpredictability of combat, encounters, and anything that qualified for some randomness. No one really remembers the average grind through an average module, but stories are still told of the fumble where the paladin rolled a series of incredibly improbable d20 results that culminated in his unintentionally decapitating a group member during combat (this really happened in one of my games, we still laugh at the absurdity of it, lol).
With 4E, character classes are watered down. Everyone is kind of the same, just with different descriptive language.
I, for one, embrace the imbalance of old editions. Wizards should suck when they're grappled! Fighters in platemail should drown! I'm thrilled that WoTC is looking to change things again. 3.5 was great but had gotten a bit bloated. A shake up was needed...unfortunately, 4E didn't work out.
I agree with you.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 11:33AM
#462
|
|
|
In summary, I think the edition wars really truly began with 4E. Why? Up until 3.5, the beauty of AD&D was the unpredictability of combat, encounters, and anything that qualified for some randomness. No one really remembers the average grind through an average module, but stories are still told of the fumble where the paladin rolled a series of incredibly improbable d20 results that culminated in his unintentionally decapitating a group member during combat (this really happened in one of my games, we still laugh at the absurdity of it, lol).
And thus where you start being wrong. A lot of people hated the addition of the d20 which you seem to think is inherent (showing you started with 3e?).
Edition wars have been around since they started them. I still see 1e, 2e and 3e games in addition to pathfinder. Tons of people refuse to change between them.
You are just a 4e hater that want a retro game, not a forward thinking edition.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 11:33AM
#463
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
Mike Mearls has recent said that he's considering giving two themes to the fighter. If that is so, then the Fighter probably won't have access to Tome of Battle and 4E manuevers (since two sets of those would be very powerful indeed).
There are two things to consider here. First, in 3e there were tactical feats that gave three maneuvers/abilities for the cost of a single feat. They were often good and often not so good. I can totally see this being brought back as the "suite" of maneuvers that Mike Mearls was talking about. Second, if these abiltities don't scale, then they will become less and less useful as the fighter rises in level. Given that they have shown in more than one area that they don't want scaling to happen, then I can see higher level feats being given greater power and granting ToB and 4e maneuver quality abilities.
I remember those feats. A player in a game I was in played a swashbuckler rogue with Einhander, he had a good time.
Wait, I think you're contradicting yourself. You say that the feats don't rise in power and are less useful over time. You also say that they don't want scaling to happen.
You'd think that would mean that they WON'T improve the power of those feats. I don't understand how that reasoning could lead to them increasing the power of said feats.
I'm guessing here based on things that they have said. It's possible that the feats will be refunded and used for better things, or that similar to wizards, fighters will get X manueve slots of various levels to use and you can use lower level ones in higher slots to greater effect.
I'm not sure I like losing lower level feats and refunding them for different class features later on. I like the permanency of leveling up.
The problem with forcing the fighter to trade their Theme to be competitive with the Wizard in and out of combat is that the wizard already does that, without needing to use up a theme. Indeed, any theme the Fighter can take the Wizard can take too, and vice versa, so there's nothing stopping a Wizard from also gaining manuevers and being strickly better than the fighter at everything but hit points.
By the way, I'm glad we can have a discussion without mud-slinging. I think you have some very interesting points and I'm glad we can discuss those.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 11:39AM
#464
|
Date Joined:
May 28, 2012
|
In summary, I think the edition wars really truly began with 4E. Why? Up until 3.5, the beauty of AD&D was the unpredictability of combat, encounters, and anything that qualified for some randomness. No one really remembers the average grind through an average module, but stories are still told of the fumble where the paladin rolled a series of incredibly improbable d20 results that culminated in his unintentionally decapitating a group member during combat (this really happened in one of my games, we still laugh at the absurdity of it, lol).
And thus where you start being wrong. A lot of people hated the addition of the d20 which you seem to think is inherent (showing you started with 3e?).
Edition wars have been around since they started them. I still see 1e, 2e and 3e games in addition to pathfinder. Tons of people refuse to change between them.
You are just a 4e hater that want a retro game, not a forward thinking edition.
Actually, I started with 1E. I liked each updated edition. Perhaps I'm not familiar with some of the debates between prior editions, but I stand by my point. 1E through 3.5 all had distinct differences between classes. Every combat situation was approached uniquely.
4E played like a console game. Not necessarily a bad thing, just completely different from the spirit of the original RPG.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 11:50AM
#465
|
|
|
In summary, I think the edition wars really truly began with 4E. Why? Up until 3.5, the beauty of AD&D was the unpredictability of combat, encounters, and anything that qualified for some randomness. No one really remembers the average grind through an average module, but stories are still told of the fumble where the paladin rolled a series of incredibly improbable d20 results that culminated in his unintentionally decapitating a group member during combat (this really happened in one of my games, we still laugh at the absurdity of it, lol).
And thus where you start being wrong. A lot of people hated the addition of the d20 which you seem to think is inherent (showing you started with 3e?).
Edition wars have been around since they started them. I still see 1e, 2e and 3e games in addition to pathfinder. Tons of people refuse to change between them.
You are just a 4e hater that want a retro game, not a forward thinking edition.
Role playing game design is not linear. There is no real "forward thinking". When looking to improve a game, or anything for that matter, whether it be a car or an pie recipie, one needs to go and look back on what was already done, and improve and build on what worked right. There were good things in past editions, good things in 1e, 2e, 3e, even a few good things in 4e. You cant just throw out the past and try and reinvent the wheel, and call it "forward thinking"
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 12:27PM
#466
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
I'm not sure I like losing lower level feats and refunding them for different class features later on. I like the permanency of leveling up.
The problem with forcing the fighter to trade their Theme to be competitive with the Wizard in and out of combat is that the wizard already does that, without needing to use up a theme. Indeed, any theme the Fighter can take the Wizard can take too, and vice versa, so there's nothing stopping a Wizard from also gaining manuevers and being strickly better than the fighter at everything but hit points.
I agree with you here, but I wasn't talking about the themes, but rather of the feats and suites of maneuvers that we were told about. Themes and backgrounds aren't really something that to me are interchangeable. Also, themes might themselves come with maneuvers that are level based. At level 1 you get X, at level 11 you get Y, and at level 21 you get Z, with those maneuvers increasing in power.
By the way, I'm glad we can have a discussion without mud-slinging. I think you have some very interesting points and I'm glad we can discuss those.
Me too. I much prefer discussions to arguments.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 3:24PM
#467
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
I think we can all agree that every edition, 1st through 4th, presented a number of different and successful ideas. There is no "regression" aspect of 5th Edition. By observing the success and failures of previous editions, 5th Edition moves forward in a different direction. Just like every edition past 1st.
Nobody wants the game to be 1st edition, or 2nd, or 3rd, or 4th. Those games already exist. The search for a "retro" feel is a noble one, but it's also true that incorporating smart design choices from later editions is a good idea.
The point of the Basic structure of the game is not to make it AD&D for the "grognards" and include 4th Edition Modules for the "4vengers". It's to make a basic fantasy tabletop game stripped down as much as possible, with ALL previous editions supported for inclusion in the game, all of them balanced to one another and functioning within the same basic ruleset.
I think with the community's combined experience we can help make that goal a reality.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 8:11PM
#468
|
|
|
In summary, I think the edition wars really truly began with 4E. Why? Up until 3.5, the beauty of AD&D was the unpredictability of combat, encounters, and anything that qualified for some randomness. No one really remembers the average grind through an average module, but stories are still told of the fumble where the paladin rolled a series of incredibly improbable d20 results that culminated in his unintentionally decapitating a group member during combat (this really happened in one of my games, we still laugh at the absurdity of it, lol).
With 4E, character classes are watered down. Everyone is kind of the same, just with different descriptive language.
I, for one, embrace the imbalance of old editions. Wizards should suck when they're grappled! Fighters in platemail should drown! I'm thrilled that WoTC is looking to change things again. 3.5 was great but had gotten a bit bloated. A shake up was needed...unfortunately, 4E didn't work out.
Wait what? 3e is when the edition wars started. There were a number of reasons why but ultimatly, it was so bad that complaints were sent to their own specific section of the forums. When the traffic there was bigger that all of the rest of the forums combined months later the forum section itself was terminated.
It was a terrible time. The 1e and 2e players were seeing AD&D split. Some of them raged, others moved on, and some picked up 3e.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 8:24PM
#469
|
Date Joined:
Nov 24, 2009
|
In summary, I think the edition wars really truly began with 4E. Why? Up until 3.5, the beauty of AD&D was the unpredictability of combat, encounters, and anything that qualified for some randomness. No one really remembers the average grind through an average module, but stories are still told of the fumble where the paladin rolled a series of incredibly improbable d20 results that culminated in his unintentionally decapitating a group member during combat (this really happened in one of my games, we still laugh at the absurdity of it, lol).
And thus where you start being wrong. A lot of people hated the addition of the d20 which you seem to think is inherent (showing you started with 3e?).
Edition wars have been around since they started them. I still see 1e, 2e and 3e games in addition to pathfinder. Tons of people refuse to change between them.
You are just a 4e hater that want a retro game, not a forward thinking edition.
Role playing game design is not linear. There is no real "forward thinking". When looking to improve a game, or anything for that matter, whether it be a car or an pie recipie, one needs to go and look back on what was already done, and improve and build on what worked right. There were good things in past editions, good things in 1e, 2e, 3e, even a few good things in 4e. You cant just throw out the past and try and reinvent the wheel, and call it "forward thinking"
Bravo Styny, bravo, i do agree with you.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 8:27PM
#470
|
Date Joined:
Nov 24, 2009
|
In summary, I think the edition wars really truly began with 4E. Why? Up until 3.5, the beauty of AD&D was the unpredictability of combat, encounters, and anything that qualified for some randomness. No one really remembers the average grind through an average module, but stories are still told of the fumble where the paladin rolled a series of incredibly improbable d20 results that culminated in his unintentionally decapitating a group member during combat (this really happened in one of my games, we still laugh at the absurdity of it, lol).
With 4E, character classes are watered down. Everyone is kind of the same, just with different descriptive language.
I, for one, embrace the imbalance of old editions. Wizards should suck when they're grappled! Fighters in platemail should drown! I'm thrilled that WoTC is looking to change things again. 3.5 was great but had gotten a bit bloated. A shake up was needed...unfortunately, 4E didn't work out.
I agree with you.
++ for me as well!
|
|
|
