|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 7:15AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2007
|
At this point, there's no reason to choose this game over any game ever created, or any reason to choose any game ever created over this game. There's simply no sense in trying to compare a non-game like 5e to an actual game.
I don't know. I'd still choose what we have of 5e now over FATAL. 
Heh. Not having ever played FATAL, I can't speak from experience on this, but I have heard nothing good about it from posters here.
Eh. I've never played myself but the rules were just seemed needlessly specific in a lot of areas. (Is it really necessary to roll to determine something like pelvic width? (not an actual roll to my recollection, but that's the level of detail it can get into.) Granted, I'm sure you can ignore those rules and still play, but I'm fine sticking with D&D for my fantasy needs. To others here no offense meant.
(Although the reviews saying its terrible are funny in thier own right, hence the joke I was going for. Not trying to start a discussion on anything really.)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 7:21AM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2004
|
For me, 4e allowed to bring a lot of new people into the game, people who would not try it before because of so many rules and complications of 3 and 3.5 -from the point of view of unexperienced people-. While it focused so much on encounters, a good DM would make the best of every adventure, and it was the same with skill challenges. Problem is a lot of DMs chose to stick to what was written in the books and yes, I must accept that wasn't always that good.
This was the ovious thought process behind 4E (and the rule set would have been great for D&D online). The funny thing is a lot of people flocked to Pathfinder instead of 4E.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 7:23AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
At this point, there's no reason to choose this game over any game ever created, or any reason to choose any game ever created over this game. There's simply no sense in trying to compare a non-game like 5e to an actual game.
I don't know. I'd still choose what we have of 5e now over FATAL.
Heh. Not having ever played FATAL, I can't speak from experience on this, but I have heard nothing good about it from posters here.
Eh. I've never played myself but the rules were just seemed needlessly specific in a lot of areas. (Is it really necessary to roll to determine something like pelvic width? (not an actual roll to my recollection, but that's the level of detail it can get into.) Granted, I'm sure you can ignore those rules and still play, but I'm fine sticking with D&D for my fantasy needs. To others here no offense meant.
(Although the reviews saying its terrible are funny in thier own right, hence the joke I was going for. Not trying to start a discussion on anything really.)
Sounds like the old I.C.E. rules where they had 5 different crit tables for every single weapon (more than are in D&D) and many spells against 20 different armor classes.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 7:29AM
#44
|
|
|
The question is why on Oerth would you want 3.5 period. Yes it had lots of material. So did 2nd Edition. 3.5 rewarded power gamers with meta game mastery (like MTG did) and in my opinion encouraged the worst type of game play (as in my experience power gamers tend to ruin entire sessions for the group). The skill system and attack system of 3.5 was an improvement over previous edtions as was the flexibility at the core to make a character you want without having the DM to make a unique class. However this came at a heavy price with poor multiclass rules and class system that rewarded players by power dipping into other classes.
If you still like 3.5 or even PFRPG, by all means stay with it. No system is perfect however making the game run smoother and allowing people to play what they want or envision without ruining the experience for others is a good thing. This (like 4th) is very easy to pick up and play which helps players and DM's alike (no more player creating sessions or spending 30 min to an hour rolling up NPCs for a mid-high level adventure). Those are the biggest reasons to keep trying this over 3.5 for now at least.
In the end the game is what you make of it and any rules set forth by any edition have always been nothing more than guidlines and not rules so that you as the DM had the ultimate flexibility to ensure everyone at the game was having a great memorable time.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 8:08AM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Nov 15, 2007
|
From what I understand of the rest of the system, even at character creation it will encourage players to think of their characters in terms of characters and not "builds" in that you choose Backgrounds and Themes which give you a package of abilities related to your background and character concept instead of allowed you to pick and choose individual skills and feats(though, it will offer an optional feature to pick and choose those for the people who really like that).
Basically, much easier to DM and play is the real reason behind it. With more balance.
Okay, I can appreciate the idea of creating a system with a purpose of pure unbound roleplay, except this is precisely NOT what I like D&D for. I love D&D for its chainmail roots. I just hope Next will be an alternative, not a REPLACEMENT.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 8:29AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2011
|
You shouldn't choose this over 3.5. 3.5 is a complete game with a huge catalog. This is an alpha rules set. The only reason to use this packet is to playtest. It's not a preview or an expostion, it's an invitation to get your hands dirty.
Thank you for your intelligence! I wish more people understood what the whole playtesting this is all about.
Playtest or get off the playtest boards.
---
I want justice for the voice that can't be heard
Vindication for every suffering and hurt
Let retribution hold dominion over earth
--Nemesis, VNV Nation
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 8:38AM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2011
|
I've got some legitamite questions for all you 4E haters out there. At what point during developement did you determine that 4E just wasn't going to cut it? Did you try it and dislike it after release, or during testing?
While I was cautiously apprehensive prior to its release--hearing some good thing and also some bad things, it was only after it was published that I knew that it wasn't for me.
Playtest or get off the playtest boards.
---
I want justice for the voice that can't be heard
Vindication for every suffering and hurt
Let retribution hold dominion over earth
--Nemesis, VNV Nation
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 6:22PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Jul 17, 2004
|
This isn't even a beta test. In a beta test, most things are set in stone and playtesting it to tweak the system for final release. What you are seeing now are the beginnings of preliminary ideas for the system. Nothing is set in stone. Everything will change to some degree or vanish completely. New things will be added.
At this point, there's no reason to choose this game over any game ever created, or any reason to choose any game ever created over this game. There's simply no sense in trying to compare a non-game like 5e to an actual game.
I think we're seeing the core of what will be here, and while new "modules" may come out, some things are, from various posts here, podcasts, and articles by the devs, pretty much (99.99%) set in stone at this point:
Vancian Magic
Saves
Save-or-Die
AC
Typed Weapons
Hit Points
Maybe there will be modules to "work around" or which have "alternatives" to these core elements, but you can bet that they are, for the most part, here to stay, period.
And, since those elements definitely define a certain style, or return to specific traits from pre-4e editions, you can already tell the "flavor" of 5e will be more similar to those editions than it will be an evolution of 4e into something entirely new that we've not yet seen.
So, if you don't like those above items, and you're really not willing to add extra/optional/additional modules to your core game in order to play without them, then you may rather play 4e, or if you don't like the various tweaks we've seen, then you may well want to stick with 3.5e/Pathfinder...
True, everything hasn't been revealed, but the core will remain (pretty much) as we're seeing it now.
"I'm just killing time, since it's killing us."
--Cyon Fal'Duur, Pathfinder Chronicler: Rogue Ascendant
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 6:53PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
|
I'd choose D&DNext over 3.5, at least so far, because of the simplified rules, no requirement to use miniatures.
And Wizards can start again with rulebooks so I don't have to put up with players turning up with internet forum built super characters such as cleric archers, or bards that can kill or stun everyone in a certain radius just by strumming a lute (although that was fun when PC's got caught in the area of effect).
I'm encouraged by what I've read so far. Just getting my party together now.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 11:55PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
Well, what I'm seeing so far, in terms of things D&D Next is likely to do better than 3.X (based on the playtest packet):
- Lighter systemweight. No skill points, fewer bonus types. Smaller, simpler character sheets.
- Less extreme scaling. It may take many more orcs to bring down a 10th level Fighter than a 1st level Fighter... but no matter how high your level, there's always some number of orcs capable of bringing you down.
- Backgrounds and Themes as character design elements. This means a finer degree of character customization than in 3.X, starting from 1st level and without diluting your class abilities.
- Better balance between casters and non-casters.
And those are just things based on a very barebones alpha test. Once we see more of the features of the game-- what happens at higher levels, what multiclassing looks like, etc.-- we may find that there's even more to like about it. I see a lot of promise in this ruleset, depending on where the designers go with it.
|
|
|
