|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 12:31PM
#71
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2011
|
While we're on the subject, I'll throw in one more deal-breaker for me: an over-reliance on game mechanics at the expense of in-universe explanation. The best example I have for that is a Dark Pact warlock I played, whose main at-will ability seemed to injure people when he looked at them funny... or when they looked at him funny... or something; fortunately, that character died before we ran out of ways to try and explain it without just saying, "I use this ability, whatever it is." I seem to recall similar issues with the paladin's mark ability, and numerous less memorable examples, but it's been a while.
Are you talking about Eyebite? The power that specifically says:
You glare at your enemy, and your eyes briefly gleam with brilliant colors. Your foe reels under your mental assault, and you vanish from his sight.
No, he's talking about
Warlock Attack 1Spiteful GlamorThe mere sight of you is anathema to your enemy. At-Will  Arcane, Implement, Psychic
Standard Action Ranged 10 Target: One creature Attack: Charisma vs. Will Hit: 1d8 + Charisma modifier psychic damage, or 1d12 + Charisma modifier psychic damage to a target at maximum hit points.
Increase damage to 2d8 + Charisma modifier at 21st level, or 2d12 + Charisma modifier to a target at maximum hit points.
holydoom.weebly.com: Holydoom! A lighthearted RPG in progress. Loosely based on 3.5. 4, and GURPS. Very, Very, Very loosely. Seriously, visit it now. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/ … s_Handbook An attempt at CharOp To anyone who thinks Pathfinder is outselling D&D
Show
While one report may say that FLGS report a greater amount of book sales, one cannot forget the fact that the 71000 DDI subscribers paying 6-10 dollars a month don't count as "Book Sales." "see sig" redirects here
Show
Oblivious troll is Oblivious PbP supporter! General thoughts, feelings, and info on DDN!
Show
Stuff I Heard Mike Say (subject to change): Multiclassing will be different than in 3.5! That's important.
There is no level cap; classes advance ala 3.5 epic levels after a set level.
Mundane (AKA fighter and co) encounter and daily powers will probably not be in the PHB (for the lack of space), but nor will they be in some obscure book released halfway through the edition. You can't please everyone, but you can please me. I DO NOT WANT A FREAKING 4E REPEAT. I DO NOT WANT A MODULE THAT MIMICS MY FAVORITE EDITION. I WANT MODULES THAT MIMIC A PLAYSTYLE AND CAN BE INTERCHANGED TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FEEL, BUT NOT THE THEME, OF D&D. A perfect example would be an espionage module, or desert survival. A BAD EXAMPLE IS HEALING SURGES. WE HAVE 4E FOR THOSE! A good example is a way to combine a mundane and self healing module, a high-survival-rate module, and a separate pool of healing resource module.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 12:37PM
#72
|
|
|
Mandatory DDI.
^ Dealbreaker. Don't like online articles as much as I like reading the article in person. I was very sad when Dungeon and Dragon magazines went all digital. Heck, WotC puts out so little nowadays online article wise, just combine the two into one magazine and print it as "Dungeons and Dragons".
Other things I don't want to see:
1. All classes feel the same because they are not differentiated by fluff enough and the presentation of the mechanics. For me alot of it is about that intangible "feel" and "flavor" that makes DnD for me. In practice all the editions of DnD are more similar than they are different, but presentation does change the perspective alot (at least for myself). I don't know how to describe to better than this....it has to feel like DnD.
2. Magic-mart being the default way of playing. Magic items need to be rare and wonderous when players finally find one.
3. If you want to use specified language and mechanics to describe combat, i'm cool with that, but please do not design it in such a way that a grid is required, and ensure that there is plenty of "fluff" descriptions for abilities and powers. I don't want it to sound mechanical (though it may play that way for balance).
4. 4e is my favorite editon for balance and gameplay, but I prefer how 3e and earlier "felt" and "sounded" when reading the fluff. I think half of getting NEXT right will be making a well balanced game (such as 4e), "FEEL" like somthing fluffy and fantastic.
5. Every class being a built in heal-o-matic where there is no significant threat of death (My biggest gripe about 4e was too much healing). Make DnD challenging AND dangerous again. Please.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 12:50PM
#73
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
1. Padding the books with loads of nostagic fluff.
2, Having to wait too long for the modules to turn the game into something I want to play.
3. Expensive core rulebooks I don't want to use without the right modules (in order for the modular approach to work they need to be cheap).
4. Having to look up rules.
5. You face 10 identical kobolds... yawn.
6. Being totally at the DMs whim (are the monsters 5 feet apart or not?)
7. Finding DDI articles that cover your favoured gaming style are few and far between or are mechanic free fluff.
8. Cancelling DDI support for 4e.
9. Allowing spells to trump skills or class abilities.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 12:52PM
#74
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2005
|
2. Magic-mart being the default way of playing. Magic items need to be rare and wonderous when players finally find one.
No, I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. Wanting magic items for be rare and wonderous is a perfectly valid play-style, but wanting magic-marts around every corner is also a perfectly valid play-style. Fortunately, the developers have said that they're trying to legitimize both play-styles as possibilities.
Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TMSpeaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 12:54PM
#75
|
Date Joined:
Jan 30, 2012
|
While we're on the subject, I'll throw in one more deal-breaker for me: an over-reliance on game mechanics at the expense of in-universe explanation. The best example I have for that is a Dark Pact warlock I played, whose main at-will ability seemed to injure people when he looked at them funny... or when they looked at him funny... or something; fortunately, that character died before we ran out of ways to try and explain it without just saying, "I use this ability, whatever it is." I seem to recall similar issues with the paladin's mark ability, and numerous less memorable examples, but it's been a while.
Are you talking about Eyebite? The power that specifically says:
You glare at your enemy, and your eyes briefly gleam with brilliant colors. Your foe reels under your mental assault, and you vanish from his sight.
No, he's talking about
Warlock Attack 1Spiteful GlamorThe mere sight of you is anathema to your enemy. At-Will Arcane, Implement, Psychic
Standard Action Ranged 10 Target: One creature Attack: Charisma vs. Will Hit: 1d8 + Charisma modifier psychic damage, or 1d12 + Charisma modifier psychic damage to a target at maximum hit points.
Increase damage to 2d8 + Charisma modifier at 21st level, or 2d12 + Charisma modifier to a target at maximum hit points.
Oh, well that clearly shows that it's a psychic attack, not unlike me invading a person's mind and twisting their perceptions of reality into nightmarishly painful delusions. I'm not sure what was so hard about that.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in an thread with GM_Champion" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go in against AzureShade when card design is on the line!
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 12:56PM
#76
|
|
|
I think my deal breaker would be if it tried to make its self into a tactical combat simulation.
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012 DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour Spoiler:
Show
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
All characters have a story. Spoiler:
Show
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 12:59PM
#77
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
2. Magic-mart being the default way of playing. Magic items need to be rare and wonderous when players finally find one.
No, I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. Wanting magic items for be rare and wonderous is a perfectly valid play-style, but wanting magic-marts around every corner is also a perfectly valid play-style. Fortunately, the developers have said that they're trying to legitimize both play-styles as possibilities.
Having both doesn't seem too hard to me. I played in games of both varieties in editions 1e-3e and if I had stuck with 4e, would have done it there as well. It was just a matter of preference in every edition that I have seen and it doesn't seem like that will change for 5e.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 1:08PM
#78
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
Are you talking about Eyebite? The power that specifically says:
You glare at your enemy, and your eyes briefly gleam with brilliant colors. Your foe reels under your mental assault, and you vanish from his sight.
Probably. I think the issues were with how it was actually supposed to deal damage (induce minor heart attack?), especially in regards to non-sentient undead, and how it's supposed to work when the target was previously unaware of you.
I can imagine staring down a living, intelligent creature and making it "feel weak" - by a very loose definition of hit points. It's less reasonable to deliver a killing blow in such a manner. Sneaking up behind a guard and glaring at the back of his head, so he won't be able to see me as I run past, just feels silly. Hiding up on a ledge and glaring at a group of enemies (one at a time) without ever anything betraying my position would require metagame knowledge on the part of the DM to adjudicate properly, because the reasonable alternative is that I just bypassed that encounter.
Further along that line, what does it feel like to be cursed? I had mooks keeling over left and right from some fancy rod that attached free damage to my curse, but nowhere does it describe how anyone is supposed to know when he's under the effect of a curse.
That's more similar to the paladin mark issue, actually. How does someone know that he must attack the girl in plate because if he hits the wizard he will spontaneously explode? I mean, obviously it's magic, but seriously? If anyone was ever put into that situation, and gained that kind of knowledge, how would he react? I think the rational thing to do is to throw down your weapon and beg for mercy, because this paladin is waaay more powerful than you can possibly comprehend.
Things like that. Fairly simple, straightforward rules from a game standpoint, but much harder to accept as a representation of what's actually going on in the world.
Edit: Zelkon was right. I probably took both of those powers, because I remember having the issues I described here with Eyebite, but Spiteful Glamor is the one I was thinking of for the lack of description.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 1:45PM
#79
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2004
|
List your deal breakers here. So we can give the developers a good idea of what we don't want to see in 5E.
My personal deal breaker is vancian magic as the baseline 'core' of how casters work. If they put it in as an optional module, I'm completely fine with it, but as 'core' its a deal breaker to me.
• Elminster
• The extinction of chainmail bikinis
• Spellcasters deciding how everybody must organize their adventuring time (stupid Vancian spellcasting)
• Being unable to chain two fights without a healer and having to wait one week before the fighter is efficient again (as personnal resilience in D&D is strictly limited to hit points)
• The extinction of studded leather bikinis
• Parasitic gods (okay, maybe this one is unavoidable, but I had to try)
• Half-humans unless an half elf/orc is introduced
• The extinction of full plate bikinis
• pure basic attacks spammer fighters
• Healing bot cleric as the only healing option (I want everybody at my table being able to play something interesting)
• Non evil vampires (who want to have doubts when hunting vampires ? They have already killed the fun about drows genocide with the Drizzt incident, please, leave the vampires alone ! Or create a race of totally evil Elminsters !)
• Clowns (seriously, who wants clowns in their fantasy settings ?)
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion
"Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe
"In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer
"Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition.
"you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 1:48PM
#80
|
Date Joined:
Jan 30, 2012
|
That's more similar to the paladin mark issue, actually. How does someone know that he must attack the girl in plate because if he hits the wizard he will spontaneously explode? I mean, obviously it's magic, but seriously? If anyone was ever put into that situation, and gained that kind of knowledge, how would he react? I think the rational thing to do is to throw down your weapon and beg for mercy, because this paladin is waaay more powerful than you can possibly comprehend.
This is a valid complaint, but then again, I don't know any edition of D&D where the paladin class hasn't been a complete cluster****.
As for the rest, it almost seems like you're blaming the game for not strictly codifying everything about how your character functions, which confuses me a little as that seems to be one of the chief complaints about 4th Ed.....the vast amount of codifying.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in an thread with GM_Champion" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go in against AzureShade when card design is on the line!
|
|
|
