|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 7:24PM
#31
|
|
|
It could be that some folks aren't used to the concpt/environment of "Playtest".
Yes, you find the characters boring because they're pre-made and generic. You have no vested interest as you didn't build the character. You didn't make choices that will impact the game. And, deep down, you know it's more or less a one shot deal where each character really doesn't have a future.
The game will be a long term one, but for purposes of the playtest, you need to just evaluate what's in front of you at the moment. Does this here work?
I don't think you understand the point of this thread. It's about how combat is boring. It has nothing to do with investment in your character.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 10:37PM
#32
|
|
|
@Blackknight
In my playtest thread I added a few ideas for fighters having more options. I agree they needs some fleshing out over and above what is currently in place.
That isn't a problem of this edition though, it has always been a bit too bland.
This edition is an opportunity to add some flavor to fighters/melee classes beyond the attack progression and the options to "trip, sunder, etc."
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 10:44PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
Also, some people saying "find a better DM" act as though there is a limitless supply of DM's in the area who happen to play the exact same system as you. There is only one Pathfinder and two 4e groups in my area as far as I know. It's not like there is much choice.
No rules set is going to magically turn a bad DM into a good one. However, a bad rules set can straitjacket a good DM and make him worse.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 12:02AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
I don't think you understand the point of this thread. It's about how combat is boring. It has nothing to do with investment in your character.[/quote]
But its not boring. Taking away the mandatory grid and making combat simpler encourages imagination and ROLEPLAYING. Players can come up with their own ways of doing x, y, or z. I don't need an AT WILL to say I can do x, then a UTILITY to state I can do y, and a DAILY to tell me its ok to do z. All of which will be wrapped in a fluffy anime sounding name. Creative players can take a simple system and make it interesting. Boring players can take a rules bloated system like Pathfinder, 3.5, or 4e and make it into a soulless minis game with a little exposition by the DM as they set up the next encounter.
In any RPG, if you find yourself bored you need to look at yourself and your fellow players before you blame the rules. If the rules are just dumb and don't make sense its a different matter, but it would be hard to argue that in this case.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 12:21AM
#35
|
|
|
What I see so far, the game is going to be based on 3 important interaction mechanics:
1. Checks
2. Attacks
3. Saves
These will cover most (if not all) creative actions the players may bring to the table anytime. Especially in combat, we can see lots of check contests, clever attacks, genious ways of using the battlefield. No more set in stone powers that limit you to a certain quantity of bonuses and used again and again and again throughout a campaign, just because they are designed to bring you a win. Instead a simple mechanic that can address a very broad area of possibilities is much much more fun to play, and it is hardly boring.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 12:36AM
#36
|
|
|
I entirely agree OP. My friday group tried it out tonight, and yes, it's just as I feared. BORING. What it boiled down to was the Cleric of Moradin making melee basics every turn, the Wizard using Magic Missile every turn (an maybe burning hands), The Fighter just making melee basics, and the Cleric of Pelor always using the radiant lance.
The whole encounter felt like just spamming at-wills in 4e when you run out of all the fun stuff and combat comes to a grind. This is just like that, except that there's never fun stuff. I as a player love melee-oriented roles, and I started in 3.5. In 3.5, I hated that playing a melee role always meant "Melee basic. Done" while the caster would go "Hmm, let me check ALL of my options and cool stuff". But, I didn't like playing a caster, because the huge amount of spells, and figuring out slots and prepared and what's in your book, etc... made it way too much of a headache. The only exception was the Book of Nine Swords (4e's inspiration to an extent), but EVERY group I was ever in never allowed BoNS due to it being "broken".As a result, I always DMed, there were pretty much no characters I enjoyed playing in 3.5.
Finally 4e rolled around, and thank God, I can finally play a melee character that does more than just a melee basic. I get to pull off cool fun maneuvers and knock people around, and drag them around, and daze them, and do deep cuts, and all this cool stuff while the casters still got their spells and for once in history didn't seem to immensely overshadow the meleers.
From the way this playtest session went, combat was immensely boring, and I don't see myself wanting to play a character.
Dark Sun! Dark Sun! Dark Sun! Dark Sun! Dark Sun!
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 12:52AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2006
|
Also, some people saying "find a better DM" act as though there is a limitless supply of DM's in the area who happen to play the exact same system as you. There is only one Pathfinder and two 4e groups in my area as far as I know. It's not like there is much choice.
So how many people are in each of these groups?
What would you do if your DM simply quit?
DMing - any edition - isn't really that hard. (psst: children can do it) So anyone can take a crack at it. And everyone should!
So in an average group you've got 5-6 potential DMs....
(One of the groups I play in? Every single one of us is a vet. DM. We all have different styles, but between us we comprise almost 170 years worth of XP)
*Now it might be that you've already eliminated certain people from sitting in the DMs chair (I know my Sunday group has). They've proven that they run games in ways the rest don't enjoy....
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 1:05AM
#38
|
|
|
Also, some people saying "find a better DM" act as though there is a limitless supply of DM's in the area who happen to play the exact same system as you. There is only one Pathfinder and two 4e groups in my area as far as I know. It's not like there is much choice.
No rules set is going to magically turn a bad DM into a good one. However, a bad rules set can straitjacket a good DM and make him worse.
Clearly, then, the idea system is to have no rules. That allows the most creativity, doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 1:08AM
#39
|
|
|
What I see so far, the game is going to be based on 3 important interaction mechanics:
1. Checks
2. Attacks
3. Saves
These will cover most (if not all) creative actions the players may bring to the table anytime. Especially in combat, we can see lots of check contests, clever attacks, genious ways of using the battlefield. No more set in stone powers that limit you to a certain quantity of bonuses and used again and again and again throughout a campaign, just because they are designed to bring you a win. Instead a simple mechanic that can address a very broad area of possibilities is much much more fun to play, and it is hardly boring.
I agree, but think we should take it one further and get rid of spell lists. I don't need some set in stone spell limiting me to do exactly what the description says. Why can't I be creative and describe the magic I want to perform?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 1:50AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2010
|
After playtesting from tonight...i have to say...this feels like Diablo...and not in a good way...you encounter ATON of enemies that will die in one hit and can barely hit...not that they will actually hit...because they will die during the first round...then there are the monsters that take like 6 rounds of punishments and can one shot most characters, not because they have special ability and stuff...but because they have more damage rolls and bigger damage dice and more hp...i have seen minions on 4e more interesting than those "special monsters". As much as you say that 4e combat is slow...at least every encounter felt important...instead of being, first round everything is dead...there is no tactics or decisions...when the party encountered the minotaur, the first thing it does...charge the mage, and oneshot him, because there is nothing that keep him from doing that...the rest of the party during the entire session felt like 5th wheel of the cart, because clerics did everything, even more when their buffs last 1 hour and most combat end in 6 seconds...so their buffs lasted almost all session and destroyed everything...
There was no tactics or decisions in combat, it's only luck...4e may have overcomplicated combat by later levels...but at least it lowered or minimized more the luck aspect of combat and leaned more toward tactics and decisions than past editions...and 5e ofcourse...because this is 2.9...
|
|
|
