|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 8:51AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2012
|
I wasn't at the seminar but my DM was present.
Here are some impressions he gave me...
1. They are being very smart about how they build each component. They want plug and play like functionality. This reminded him of object oriented design (he's a programmer). So each component is far more independent of the rest of the system than it used to be. Thus adding or removing something causes less disruption.
2. The session left him thinking that every edition's fans are getting their concerns addressed. No one is being ignored. It is though an issue of order of events as far as the playtest goes.
3. Mike Mearls said they plan on revealing the math, so everything is fully exposed. This will make building your own races, classes, themes, backgrounds and monsters a lot easier.
4. All damage expectations are represented in the class. Thus playing with or without themes you still have a viable character. The simple fighter for example.
5. People who want more rules clarity will get modules that flesh out the details of things. Those who want less can stick with core or choose a different module.
Anyway. I really got the impression from him that he was pretty encouraged by the philosophy espoused by Mike and Rob. He attended the session with Mike as well and that was part of what gave him the good impression. My impression from him was that the 4e people present were pretty happy too.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 9:36AM
#2
|
|
|
1. They are being very smart about how they build each component. They want plug and play like functionality. This reminded him of object oriented design (he's a programmer). So each component is far more independent of the rest of the system than it used to be. Thus adding or removing something causes less disruption.
This I really like to hear. (also programmer) So say there's 5 different modules for (dis)advantage. Every single spell, power, scheme, rule, whatever still reads and works perfectly fine with any of them, only difference begin the definition of (dis)advantage?
It seems like an obvious way of doing things, but you need it down to an art with object oriented programming. (Computers can't houserule, they just crash.) If they can do it that clean then using different modules should be a pretty smooth experience.
3. Mike Mearls said they plan on revealing the math, so everything is fully exposed. This will make building your own races, classes, themes, backgrounds and monsters a lot easier.
Ohhh, do want. Although I kind of hope there's an easier way of making monsters than looking at the hard math. For classes, I want to make charts and calculate exactly how my class compares to others, but monsters don't need that kind of love. (It's nice, but I'd also like a quick way.)
Everything else sounds good. I would like to see some rules for myself though.
Edit: Fixed those boxes, I missed a "/" in a end quote tag. Ironic I do that after mentioning computers not houseruling. Mornings. >.>...
What I think the Wilder Design Goals should be. Psionic Homebrew Mk2! Changed core, Focus Points, Psionic Potentials, stuff! Very basic core stuff. :P Homebrew Psionics blog posts archive: Spoiler:
Show
UPDATED Dec/18/2012: BAMN! Random update with a modest amount of hard rules for Animal Affinity, Telepathy, and Telekinesis. ADDED: Discipline Burn and more "soft" ideas.
Dec/13/2012: Small Psionics Homebrew Update, now that I'm done with Finals.
Really old.
Nov/02/2012:
I'm working on a homebrew Wilder, and so a homebrew Psionics system. Here's a 3 part post with info on where I am in the design process.
Part 1, Hard rules/example soulknife discipline: Link.
Part 2, Basic ideas/goals on basic numbers and classes: Link.
Part 3, Direction/ideas I want to take with specific disciplines: Link.:3
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 9:57AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jan 18, 2012
|
...any word on class balance?
(I still think that 5e is salvagable if they dump the 3-pillars=balance idea and write clearer rules)
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 10:11AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
(I still think that 5e is salvagable if they dump the 3-pillars=balance idea and write clearer rules)
Y'know, I think that's a bit of a simplication, but as I read it I totally agree.
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
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 10:15AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2004
|
Considering how much of a reaver fighter's damage in the playtest comes from its theme, I have a hard time believing both that the full damage expectations will be provided by the class and that removing themes won't be a serious change in overall power level requiring the DM to significantly reconfigure encounters and the like.
Necromancy: Friendship is MagicSpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 11:13AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jan 13, 2010
|
...any word on class balance?
(I still think that 5e is salvagable if they dump the 3-pillars=balance idea and write clearer rules)
Well I have concerns about balance too, but I cant think of any way of wrighting clearer rules! Playstest so far has one of the most clear and straightforward rules systems I have seen in a lot of PnP RPGs! But I can see this beeing a matter of taste also so I understand your point...
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 11:32AM
#7
|
|
|
...any word on class balance?
(I still think that 5e is salvagable if they dump the 3-pillars=balance idea and write clearer rules)
Well I have concerns about balance too, but I cant think of any way of wrighting clearer rules! Playstest so far has one of the most clear and straightforward rules systems I have seen in a lot of PnP RPGs! But I can see this beeing a matter of taste also so I understand your point...
Just a quick example: the rules for Healing Word. You can "bestow your blessings on a creature within 50 feet of you that can hear you".
What defines "can hear you"? Does the din of battle drown out your voice? Do you have to be capable of speech? What about a cleric who, flavor-wise, has taken a Vow of Silence? What if the target is deaf?
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
Roll dice, not cars.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 11:37AM
#8
|
|
|
Yeah...5e rules may be simple but are by no means clear.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 11:48AM
#9
|
|
|
Does the din of battle drown out your voice?
No, because that would be a jerk move on the DM's part.
Do you have to be capable of speech?
Yes.
What about a cleric who, flavor-wise, has taken a Vow of Silence?
He'd have to break it to cast the spell. (Or any spell, since the rules say they all have verbal components by default.)
What if the target is deaf?
Then he can't hear you.
Of all of these questions, only the first one has an ambiguous answer that I have to appeal to competent DMing practice to decide. All the others follow clearly and naturally from the requirement. What is unclear about incapacity or vow meaning you are unable to be heard? What is unclear about deafness meaning the target can't hear?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 11:57AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2012
|
What about a cleric who, flavor-wise, has taken a Vow of Silence?
He'd have to break it to cast the spell. (Or any spell, since the rules say they all have verbal components by default.)
Unless they add silent spell metagamic like they have in the past. Saw a cleric who cast everything with silent spell for this reason.
|
|
|
