|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 6:08PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Feb 22, 2009
|
Early on its clear that with a design goal to encourage theatre of the mind the combats had to be simplified back to "walk up to monster and swing" While 4E had slowness issues due to off turn attacks and "blue Mage" game play with all the free and immediates, it also had combats with use of pull, push, slide, or signaling conditions like bloodied made for much more dynamic combats.
While its clear that a replace of five feet equals one square gets you back to miniatures math the closest we had to anything where positioning could matter is the denial of movement on the guardian theme at third. The lack of flanking and loss of opportunity attacks meant players with nothing else to do on their turn with the move action simply walked in circles around the monster cause they could.
Fast? Yes
Simple? Yes
Boring? Yes ...
Already it's clear that an evil wizard needs dozens of goons simply to occupy space in a living shield otherwise players will simple walk past them and kill the big bad evil Mage.
Another issue is a return to "fights that don't matter". If you win initiative you will decimate the other side and if it's an attrition fight of no significance other than to nich away some HP like the classic two goblins guarding a gate the a winning initiative is more like a skill challenge ... If you beat the monsters them skip the fight because there are no interesting combat mechanics anymore.
Caves of chaos quickly becomes "can we skip the trash fights and skip ahead to something that matters?". There'd is only so much role play mental gymnastics a GM can do to cover up this bland mayo on white bread combat system.
Im curious, you do realize that D&DNext is supposed to start with the simplest rule set and allow the DM and players to add the rules they want to play by right? I agree combat is boring, although there are some fun spells to play with, but to go on assuming is that this is what you can expect from the finished product is really silly.
So has a test of the very core mechanics this works perfectly. Your core mechanics should be an off white so that when you add stuff the new color stands out better.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 7:02PM
#52
|
|
|
From my groups playtest we all agreed 5th is shaping up to be nothing more then a table top battle game disguised as an RPG . We will not be wasting anymore play time on this garbage . Sticking to 3.5
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 7:12PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2010
|
From my groups playtest we all agreed 5th is shaping up to be nothing more then a table top battle game disguised as an RPG . We will not be wasting anymore play time on this garbage . Sticking to 3.5
...dude, winners don't use drugs...
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 8:44PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2012
|
What about... paces?
-YRUSirius
Heh. No one else commented on this, so I will. I like it...
***
As for the main topic of this discussion, what we should remember is that this is the bare bones version of what is to come. So, if combat is a little boring, give that feedback to WotC and more options will be provided in the second version of the playtest...
OR - we can all continue to make border-line personal attacks and edge towards edition warring. Your choice, really.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 9:00PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2004
|
From my groups playtest we all agreed 5th is shaping up to be nothing more then a table top battle game disguised as an RPG . We will not be wasting anymore play time on this garbage . Sticking to 3.5
Your feedback is garbage and hopfully no one will be wadting anymore time reading your posts.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 9:25PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Sep 22, 2006
|
The reason that combat is boring is because there is no meanful choice in combat. Movement no longer matters; you're either next to the do, or you're not. Attack choices aren't meaningful anymore, because there is only one result that matters; dead monsters, or a dead you.
In both 3.5 and 4e, what made combat compelling was choice. It wasn't a mere race to kill the otherside before you died. Movement consideration, monster complexity, and character options all offered ways for combat to be more complex, and thus more interesting.
Slower? Yes. But I think that's a fair trade off, and a trade off we can handle.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 10:04PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2007
|
From my groups playtest we all agreed 5th is shaping up to be nothing more then a table top battle game disguised as an RPG . We will not be wasting anymore play time on this garbage . Sticking to 3.5
I am gonn have to go "whhhaaaaa???" on that statement.
If 5E was a table top battle game it would have focused on things like movement, terrain, combat effects, etc ... so far 5E is the exact opposite of that.
I feel like you tried to post on early 4E combat mechanics but were slow by several years? 
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 12:47AM
#58
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
- Sesquipedalian
Date Joined:
May 20, 2001
|
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.
Well, I do because "boring" wasn't quantified. One can't just drop "Game is boring" without saying WHY. As a playtester, one has to identify what the problem is. This isn't regular boards "that's my opinion" stuff here. It's to help make the game better.
"Boring" doesn't cut it here. Again, WHY was it boring?
This is a legitimate question ... for those who have not played in combat allow me to give you a "barbarian flowchart" of how all combats function. Granted you GM/DM will add flavor to make descriptions but the core point is at a certain poitn if combat is "flip a coin ... if heads then win and move to next scene" you have a core design issue where.
GAME = player making meaningful choices ...
5E COMBAT FLOWCHART
IF Melee player AND hostile is melee THEN ready action to attack if they close to buy time for range to whittle them down
IF Melee player AND hostile is ranged THEN walk past all other monsters (they cant stop you) and stand next to target to give them disadvantage
IF Ranged player AND hostile is melee THEN walk to mx range and snipe
IF Ranged player AND hostile is ranged THEN walk to cover, shoot, and hide in cover
Thats it ... all 40 combats ... same for all 3 levels of the characters with no variation.
GAMES are fun based on players making meaningful choices. If you know that all combat choices are NOT maningful because by design in order to simpliy the game to play without a grid the design teamremoved all complications then it ceases to be as good a game.
Its like comparing TIC TAC TOE or CHECKERS to a game with more meaningful choices like CHESS or GO.
Another way to think about it is that several decades ago we had a game called PAC MAN. It was loved and super popular. Today if PAC MAN released it would be a complete non event as games have evolved to the point that it is no longer compatitive in that environment.
So far that is 5E .... rolling back every editions improvement in combat to get back to a gameplay design that may appeal to the nostalgia in original players but at a cost of all the innovations that game made in 2E, 3E, and 4E.
Awesomeness! Thanks for the explination! That's exactly the type of feedback that's helpful not only to the designers, but the rest of us trying to figure out what the problems (if any) are in the system, and understanding why someone calls it "boring".
Now I have a better understanding than before. Thank you again. 
Spoiler:
Show
Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinon an absurd effort at best considering the topic!).
It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. (AD&D) is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek the use of imagination and creativity....
In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which an fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously.
For fun, excitement and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed.As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe or even as a reflection of midieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the later must search elsewhere. - Gary Gygax. 1e DMG.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 12:59AM
#59
|
|
|
Ah yes. Grognard is the FotM term being used now. Oddly enough, your statement contradicts itself as you say it will 'attract some grognards while simultaneously alienating 4e and many 3e consumers who enjoy interesting and tactical combat.' Grognards are old soldiers/gamers as well as wargamers (which are tactical combat gamers).
BAM! Couldn't have said it better myself.
All I can say is this happens EVERY expansion. I saw the switch to 3e. "Oh Wizards screwed this up! TSR was soooo much better.", the switch to fourth "Oh my god I'm playing a video game on paper!", and now this one. It's all frustratingly humourous to watch. One thing I think is funny is that I have seen several people mention now that TSR had made a shotty game and wizards did an amazing job. I would LOVE to have put you guys in the gaming world around 1999-2000. You would have been stoned in the streets.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 1:31AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Jan 27, 2010
|
From my groups playtest we all agreed 5th is shaping up to be nothing more then a table top battle game disguised as an RPG . We will not be wasting anymore play time on this garbage . Sticking to 3.5
lol! :P
So you think 3.5 combat is better and not a "table top battle game"? Pleae enlighten me the difference
You are aware that 5e is currently made so one doesnt need a battle grid or any other boardgame things?
Have you even read the rules on combat?
|
|
|
