|
1 year ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 12:41AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
4E fans, what exactly do you want to see in D&D Next
A release date of 2018 or later.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 5:17AM
#42
|
|
|
Seriously, I hated 4th edition but I totally like the big picture you guys are presenting.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 6:42AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2008
|
4E fans, what exactly do you want to see in D&D Next
A release date of 2018 or later.
+1 to this.
Ahh, so THIS is where I can add a sig.
Remember: Killing an ancient God inside of a pyramid IS a Special Occasion, and thus, ladies should be dipping into their Special Occasions underwear drawer.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 7:04AM
#44
|
|
|
Yeah, mostly I think they could have pooled powers into power source. That would have allowed a lot of moving parts to be reused from one class to another. It can be a bit tricky, and you'd still need some stuff at the class level, but with core groups of powers at the source and then themes that can glue on a whole bunch more stuff the class then becomes more about unique features and core concept. Not 100% sure how it would work out, but it seems generally doable.
If I could design 4e all over again, I'd have multiple pools of powers, some by power source, some by role, and some by class.
So a Wizard (Arcane Controller) would be able to choose powers from the Wizard pool, the Arcane pool, and the Controller pool. In turn, the Sorcerer (Arcane Striker) could choose from the Arcane pool as well, but not from Controller or Wizard pools, instead drawing from the Sorcerer pool and Striker pool.
A Fighter and Paladin could both draw from the Defender pool, but from differing power source pools (though the Paladin would likely have been a dual martial/divine class if I were in charge), and so on and so forth.
Themes would just add on top of that. Take a theme? You now have access to a small pool of "theme powers".
Basically, it remains a class system, but with several elements of point-buy style customization. Much like Vampire allowed characters of a given clan to choose which Disciplines they wanted to focus on, you could make a very Martial-ey Fighter, or a Defender-ey Fighter, etc.
I can't imagine what sort of power would be shared by all members of a role. That is to say I CAN, but I cannot imagine any viable thematic explanation for that, it seems purely gamist. For example what power would a ranger and a sorcerer (both strikers in 4e) have in common? One uses a bow and one uses innate magical power. One is a single/multi target ranged attacker or dual wielding close melee specialist. The other is an AoE blaster. Rangers have no need for or thematic link to AoE blast type powers, nor does the sorcerer have much thematic need for a ranged weapon power. No doubt you could cook up some sort of generic power that would be skinnable to work with both, but it would be so utterly colorless as to be a pointless addition to the game (IE the class would have to 'skin' the power in terms of keywords, damage types, etc.) At that point separate powers for each are just as good (and we haven't even touched on other strikers like Monk, Barbarian, or Avenger, none of which would have any thematic use for a common power either).
I'd instead break things on class features. Every striker has a damage enhancement feature, etc. With this kind of scheme Magic Missile in the hands of a Warlock is a potent offensive tool, doing extra damage. In the hands of a wizard it is a control mechanic (maybe inflicting slow or a push). These classes could in principle share an entire spell list and yet the differences in their basic features would push each one in a different direction. The Warlock would logically look for ways to focus on doing damage well. The wizard would logically focus on making his control capability more potent. No amount of trying would make the wizard do what the warlock does, though they could probably meet in the middle somewhere if someone really wanted to play that much off role.
Themes would of course help here. Someone that wants to play a blaster wizard can take a theme that tends to help enhance damage. A warlock could go further with the same theme in that direction, but the wizard would become a bit of a dual-role character, doing some control but also substantial damage.
You could of course also go the opposite way, with the class being 'generic magic user' with both types of powers and themes being warlock or wizard. In that case though you lose the ability to use theme for other kinds of things like 'Pirate' or whatnot (though maybe we can stack a couple themes later on, hard to say).
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 7:30AM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2007
|
I like 4e quite a lot, but one of the things I don't like is how combats seem to take FOREVER. So I'm really enjoying the quicker combats in DDN so far, it's giving us a lot more time in our session to do out-of-combat roleplaying and such which is the part of the game I enjoy the most.
In terms of things from 4e that I'd like to see kept in some form in DDN, they include:
- 4e style rules organization: I think the 4e rules are the best organized of any edition. I like having the mechanics of things clearly stated seperately from "flavor text", I like monster stat blocks that are generally uniform and easy to read, and I like simple mechanical explanations of how various things work in modules and rules and elsewhere. I also like the bigger fonts and general overall layout of 4e books compared to 3e.
- Streamlined encounter design and treasure allocation: I really like the encounter design system and treasure parcel system in 4e. They're simple to use and a very quick and easy guide to help me figure out level appropriate challenges and rewards for my players. Compared to the old challenge rating systems and clunky treasure tables in 3e it's a definite improvement.
- Streamlined monster customization: Along those lines I like how 4e presents very simple step-by-step guides to customizing and creating monsters. It's faster and simpler to customize monsters in 4e than it was in 3e, for instance.
- Healing as a percentage of maximium hit points: I always thought it was goofy that the toughest characters in earlier editions were also the ones that took the longest time to heal to full hit points. To me it was always obvious that healing should usually be proportional to the maximum hit points of the character being healed. 4e addressed this issue by tieing healing to the healing surge value of 25% of your max hit points. DDN likewise should tie healing to maximum hit points, possibly by making all spells heal values linked to "hit dice" instead of just being a flat number like "1d8". For example, make Cure Light Wounds heal "one hit die worth or hit points plus the cleric's ability modifier".
- Wands with passive abilities: I love how wands in 4e aren't just batteries for spells but have their own unique passive properties work kind of like magic weapons do for martial characters. Same with other magical implements.
- Simple common mechanical conditions: I like how 4e uses simple game mechanical conditions for common things like being prone, immobilized, dazed, etc, and presents them in a nice, big font easy to read list. DDN appears to be doing something similar in the playtest manual which makes me a happy camper.
- Monsters should usually have unique abilities. I really like how in 4e almost every monster has at least some ability or two that are unique to that monster. So 4e kobolds, goblins, orcs and hobgoblins all have unique properties asides from just different hit points and damage values. DDN appears to be trying to do something similar, which is good, so hopefully they'll continue the trend and not have a lot of monsters which are mechanically identical but only differ in their damage and hit points.
- At-will spells. I like that DDN wizards and clerics can cast minor spells at will, I think it helps give them a more magical feel then in 3e where, especially at low levels, they can run out of spells and be stuck doing non-magical attacks most of the time. From a flavor standpoint I think having some at-will magic as a standard, common thing for casters improves the fun of the game.
- Improved class balance. In 3e and earlier editions wizards in particular were underpowered at low levels and overpowered at high levels. 4e directly addressed this problem and made class balance a high priority. It looks like DDN is probably going to try and keep classes relatively balanced across all experience levels, which is a good thing. I think 4e went a little overboard in making every single class use identical AEDU mechanics, though, so I'm also glad to see DDN is giving different classes different play mechanics but is still trying to keep an eye on overall class balance. (Obviously balancing classes using different mechanics is more difficult but not impossible, it just means they have to be a little more careful in how they balance things out.)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 7:33AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
from what i heared about next i had hoped it would be the folowing :
taking the next step using the newest edition as base.
and the newest edition is not 4th edition it is essentals.
so i hoped to see essentials with :
he math toned down removal of 1/2 level.
a change to the healing surge mecanic as in my opinion players had to many of them, but maintain the fact that healing is bases on regaining a % of Hp.
it was said casting would be more vancian, so i expected somthing simular to the essentials mage with encounters removed and more dailies added.
If they had done this 90% of the people playing older editions would be non the wizer as they never even looked at essentials as it had a 4th edition logo on it.
and 4th players would have gone o this ok it's very much like essentials.
instead at this point wizards is interpreting players of older editions that say they don't like 4th edition, as saying that they also don't like exxentials.
while 90% never looked at or played a essentials only game.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 10:01AM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Jan 18, 2012
|
THE 4E MANIFESTO
CLASS BALANCE, NOT THREE PILLARS!
That means in any given situation all characters are equally useful, although they may be useful in different ways. Having any one character type designed to dominate any encounter runs against what we want. We want balanced game design, not 3-pillar design where one character shines at the expense of putting others in the shade.
NO DOWNTIME, FUN FOREVER!
We want to be having fun. We don't want to be removed from the fun by having run out of resources (healing, spells, etc) and thus becoming useless or by meaningless make-work (counting ammo, having to hunt for rules). Any time my character is useless is time I'm thinking about playing something more fun. Note - it is ok for my character to be less effective due to unwise resource expendature, but not for my character to be ineffective.
MEANINGFUL CHOICES, MEANINGLESS NEVER!
We want each of our choices, in character creation, in combat, in role-play to count and have a real effect upon the game. Shallow rules don't satisfly us.
CLARITY: IMPROVISATION NOT INTERPRETATION
We want rules to be clearly written with no room for subjective interpretation. When I read a spell description my mental picture of what it can do should match the DM's picture - I should never have to guess how the DM will choose to interpret my character's abilities this week. We want room to improvise, but that springs from clear objective rules for commonly used abilities or commonly occouring situations that we can work outwards from - not from writing subjective and unclear rules.
WE DON'T CARE ABOUT 'AT-WILLS' OR 'THE GRID' LIKE YOU THINK WE DO
Seriously. An at-will spell or power is just a shortcut to 'class balance' and 'no downtime' - it is a tool to fun play, not the end-game. Playing combat out with tactical rules on a grid is a way to have meanigful choices in combat beyond just reducing HP, we are not tied to the grid but we do like exciting mini-based combat where strategy and choices have an impact.
SLAPPING AT-WILLS AND GRID-BASED COMBAT 'MODULES' ONTO AN UNCLEAR AND IMBALANCED SYSTEM WITH TOO MUCH DOWNTIME AND A LACK OF MEANINGFUL CHOICES DOSN'T CUT IT.
GIVE US THESE THINGS AND TAKE OUR MONEY!
I tell you this, if D&D was a country, You would be my President!
Thank you, but I'd prefer the title "ultrapotus". 
Not "Omnipotent Glory"? How about just "Perpetual Dungeon Master"? NOBODY can trump that, not even the gods!
I think Gygax has the title "Perpetual Dungeon Master", and "Omnipotent Glory" would make me sound like I star in superhero-themed adult entertainment.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 10:05AM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
Clarity
Keywords
Options
Guidelines
Simplicity*
Variety
*Specifically, on the DM side of things. Simplicity for DMs serves an important purpose - it makes it easier to run your big damn game. The DM needs to do so many things, so many times, that simplicity is of the absolute utmost concern. If this isn't easy to run, I won't run it. I have other games to play that are easy to run, and I'll go turn to those instead. I honestly think the emphasis on "simplicity" is horribly misplaced by a lot of people, because they focus on simplicity for some players. Honestly, give those players what they want, but understand this: "character building" happens once, or once every session or so (if your game's lethality is off the freakin' charts), for each player. "Character building" happens a multitude of times, for every session, for the DM. It has to be simple
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 10:06AM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
superhero-themed adult entertainment.
This is a thing? Why am I not watching this right now?
Oh right. In class. In public.
Later.
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 2:05PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />*Specifically, on the DM side of things. Simplicity for DMs serves an important purpose - it makes it easier to run your big damn game. The DM needs to do so many things, so many times, that simplicity is of the absolute utmost concern. If this isn't easy to run, I won't run it. I have other games to play that are easy to run, and I'll go turn to those instead. I honestly think the emphasis on "simplicity" is horribly misplaced by a lot of people, because they focus on simplicity for some players. Honestly, give those players what they want, but understand this: "character building" happens once, or once every session or so (if your game's lethality is off the freakin' charts), for each player. "Character building" happens a multitude of times, for every session, for the DM. It has to be simple
Absolutely.
Any system that doesn't have a simple monster/NPC creation mechanic is pretty much a no-go for me.
|
|
|
