|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 11:03AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
|
To all those out there already condemning this playtest as "boring" or "not new" or "not different enough to justify its existance", please step back and take a moment.
This is a playtest. It is not the finished new edition. Massive amounts of game is missing and incomplete. This is intentional. WotC are letting us be a part of the process of creating a new edition. This is not yet that new edition. Give feedback and lots of it, but pronouncments about the system, or being so bold as to compre a 31 page playtest with the pathfinder 500 page core rules is missing the point. Lets help wotc make this game feel newer, less boring, able to justify its existence. This game is like 20% finished and much of what people are dying to see has yet to make an official appearance but almost certainly will (things like powers, tactical combat rules, skills, more theme and backgrounds.)
Summary, lets not make WotC wish they hadn't invited us behind the curtain. This is a huge opportunity
(/rant-preach)
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 11:30AM
#2
|
|
|
Agreed. The title made me think you'd just be complaining about what you mention others are, though.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 11:37AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
You're right. It's not 5E. It's Basic D&D with a little more balance. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.  I'm very eager to see how much gets added to the game over time. Hopefully TONS more, including rules "modules," because I certainly wouldn't want to pay again for what I started on back in 1981, only less. Mind you, I'm not really even referring to the number of game elements or the absolute "volume" of the game, I'm really more referring to just how darn SIMILAR it is to that old red box. If WoTC's idea is to start out with an alpha version of D&D that resembles Basic D&D greatly, then add to it over time then who knows ... maybe by the time the product is finished it will look just like 4e!
OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player.
3E challenged the character, not the player.
Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM.
That's why I love 4E.
"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 11:38AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2008
|
The thing is, the whole point of feedback is the positive AND negative. And really for me I'm sick of people brushing aside negative comments under the blanket of "well it's just the playtest, this isn't finished yet, there'll be more information down the road." The thing is if we see something like say, the lack of OA and how that creates a gap in the combat system where enemies can just ignore the melee fighters and go step on the whimpering wizard in the background, then it needs to be brought to the developers attention that people find the lack of OA a negative(or maybe a positive, though have yet to see that one) to the game. But then sure enough someone comes along and just says, "Remember people this is a playtest, there'll be more info later, no need to worry, yada yada yada."
Yes it is a playtest, and unfinished. They also have more rules that they haven't released it that may include some of the things people are talking about. But maybe they don't. So just saying "Don't worry it's just a playtest" is annoying and...kinda crap. People are reading the rules we have, playing the game, and are expressing their feedback. And if they're comparing it to an existing system that's fine they're expressing their opinion on maybe something they feel works(or doesn't) in this other system compared to the playtest. And if the developers see that they might look at that other system and maybe see how that could be a good idea to work into the playtest, or remove whichever.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 11:46AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
|
The thing is, the whole point of feedback is the positive AND negative. And really for me I'm sick of people brushing aside negative comments under the blanket of "well it's just the playtest, this isn't finished yet, there'll be more information down the road." The thing is if we see something like say, the lack of OA and how that creates a gap in the combat system where enemies can just ignore the melee fighters and go step on the whimpering wizard in the background, then it needs to be brought to the developers attention that people find the lack of OA a negative(or maybe a positive, though have yet to see that one) to the game. But then sure enough someone comes along and just says, "Remember people this is a playtest, there'll be more info later, no need to worry, yada yada yada."
Yes it is a playtest, and unfinished. They also have more rules that they haven't released it that may include some of the things people are talking about. But maybe they don't. So just saying "Don't worry it's just a playtest" is annoying and...kinda crap. People are reading the rules we have, playing the game, and are expressing their feedback. And if they're comparing it to an existing system that's fine they're expressing their opinion on maybe something they feel works(or doesn't) in this other system compared to the playtest. And if the developers see that they might look at that other system and maybe see how that could be a good idea to work into the playtest, or remove whichever.
Hi Alitain,
I think you're right. Negative feedback is required. Comments about OA is vital. Do we want them? Do we not? Will they exist in a tactical rules module? Etc. But that's not what I'm talking about and I hope people aren't shouting you down when you point out the lack of OAs. What I'm talking about is system wide pronouncements or system comparisons. We need to comment on what we've been given but making pronouncements about "5E" based on this playtest is probably premature. Also, with regard to defending did you see the Defender mechanic present on the fighter? It's no OA, but it's a pretty neat use of the core advantage system and I hop that it eventually exists in conjunction with more tactical rules. As a core mechanic, I think it works well and evokes the feel of protection without actually locking enemies down.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 4:46PM
#6
|
|
|
Also, with regard to defending did you see the Defender mechanic present on the fighter?
I'm looking at the sheet right now and there isn't any - was this supposed to go on page 2?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 4:50PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
The defender mechanic is on the cleric of moradin.
the Fighter is much more damage oriented.
The two clerics are oriented defender that prevents others from getting hurt and a healer that fixes hurts.
I really like the two clerics written and their differences. It is interesting to me that both heavy armor wearers are dwarves however.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 4:54PM
#8
|
|
|
The defender mechanic is on the cleric of moradin.
the Fighter is much more damage oriented.
The two clerics are oriented defender that prevents others from getting hurt and a healer that fixes hurts.
I really like the two clerics written and their differences. It is interesting to me that both heavy armor wearers are dwarves however.
Well it makes sense, dwarves don't take negatives to their speed for wearing heavy armor.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 5:39PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2003
|
Alitain, I agree that we have to give both positive and negative feedback during the playtest. And people should not be shouting negative comments down by saying "it's just the playtest." That's the point exactly, it is a playtest. Positive and negative feedback will, hopefully, help them design a game that we all can come together over.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 5:47PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2008
|
Hi Alitain,
I think you're right. Negative feedback is required. Comments about OA is vital. Do we want them? Do we not? Will they exist in a tactical rules module? Etc. But that's not what I'm talking about and I hope people aren't shouting you down when you point out the lack of OAs. What I'm talking about is system wide pronouncements or system comparisons. We need to comment on what we've been given but making pronouncements about "5E" based on this playtest is probably premature. Also, with regard to defending did you see the Defender mechanic present on the fighter? It's no OA, but it's a pretty neat use of the core advantage system and I hop that it eventually exists in conjunction with more tactical rules. As a core mechanic, I think it works well and evokes the feel of protection without actually locking enemies down.
Honestly, while kinda helpful that Defender ability from the theme isn't all that great though. If there's no one adjacent then it's useless. And it's not where near a true defender role ability to keep enemy focus on yourself and away from the fragile, squishy wizard. That defender ability while maybe helpful to protect other melee combatants wont stop the monster from walking right past and stepping on the wizard. I agree it's a neat ability, but no where near helpful for what the game needs. And no, haven't actually had people yell at me, but I've seen too many people respond to posts about such and such not being there, like the OAs as an example, and their answer is just, "Well it's a playtest so don't worry this isn't the finished game" like that solves everything which yeah it definitely doesn't.
|
|
|
