|
1 year ago ::
Jun 19, 2012 - 7:37PM
#101
|
Date Joined:
Jan 27, 2010
|
[sarcasm]Yay! Facing! We 4e players love intricate combat rules for the sake of intricate combat rules.[/sarcasm]
I really think Mearls and Co just don't understand what 4e players want. I'm not saying that the design will be bad, I'm sure it will be an interesting game, but it dosn't sound like what I'm looking for.
IMO, some of them want 5e to be just like 4e, but that isn't going to happen.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 19, 2012 - 8:01PM
#102
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2008
|
[sarcasm]Yay! Facing! We 4e players love intricate combat rules for the sake of intricate combat rules.[/sarcasm]
I really think Mearls and Co just don't understand what 4e players want. I'm not saying that the design will be bad, I'm sure it will be an interesting game, but it dosn't sound like what I'm looking for.
IMO, some of them want 5e to be just like 4e, but that isn't going to happen.
Thats ok some of the 4e haters want everything even vaguely reminiscent of 4e to be thrown out and if THAT happens the game will be worse off whether they want to admit it or not.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 19, 2012 - 8:09PM
#103
|
|
|
Actually everyone who likes 4e who posts on these forums seems to say they realize 4e has flaws and they would like to see those flaws fixed and the foundation of 4e to be improved. To me it appears that others want the game to go back to 1/2/3e an to have nothing in it from 4e.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 19, 2012 - 8:18PM
#104
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2008
|
Actually everyone who likes 4e who posts on these forums seems to say they realize 4e has flaws and they would like to see those flaws fixed and the foundation of 4e to be improved. To me it appears that others want the game to go back to 1/2/3e an to have nothing in it from 4e.
Wow, that's a simplistic view.
Personally, I am in the party (currently) of going back to 1e/2e model (which is distinctive from the 3e model) with improvements from 3e and 4e added to the system. Believe it or not, there are individuals out there that believe each edition did certain things well and other things poorly. 4e isn't any different. It did some things really well, and it did other things poorly.
So, which group do I fit into?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 19, 2012 - 8:18PM
#105
|
|
|
SUre, it called a blind spot. I already use this in my 4E games. It is represented by the square directly behnd the mini and those in a stright line from the back of the mini.
The question is whether that's widely acceptable throughout D&D games, as opposed to a houserule.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 19, 2012 - 8:26PM
#106
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
@All
I'm in the camp that believes all editions have something to contribute and all have things I'd rather avoid.
@Stoloc
If you mean worse off than it could be then I agree. If you mean worse off than 4e itself I would not agree. I'd play any edition right now before 4e so I'm assuming most combinations of them I'd prefer. But I do believe 4e has some good ideas that I'd take along with the good ideas from earlier editions to make an even better game than any edition that came before.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 19, 2012 - 8:38PM
#107
|
|
|
Ro3:
Cleric domains represent a baseline choice that clerics make that flavor many of the abilities they gain.
First of all,
much like spheres in 2nd Edition, the cleric's choice of domain opens up new options for the spells that cleric can prepare each day.
Second,
the cleric's choice of domain grants some baseline class features that alter how the character plays.
For example,
• the cleric who chooses the War domain gains proficiency in heavy armor and shields,
• while the cleric who chooses the Sun domain gains resistance to radiant damage.
At higher levels, the cleric's domain choice helps provide more powerful class features that form an integral part of the cleric's play style; again, as an example,
• the War domain cleric might gain the ability to cast a spell and make a melee attack as a single action,
• while the Sun domain cleric could get a free radiant lance spell once per round.
I like the Sun Cleric archetype (wizard healer, white mage). So Id be the first to cry if it sucks, but it seems ok to me, so far.
First, the Sun Cleric at level one gets access to range-attack domain spells. So it is a nonmelee archetype.
Second, regarding “baseline class features”, I agree resistance to radiant damage is only “situationally useful” (the polite way of saying, it sucks), but presumably it balances against access to ranged attacks.
Maybe, instead of armor, let an aura of light allow the Sun Cleric a defensive function, such as blind darkvision attackers.
At least in the play test, the War Cleric and the Sun Cleric seemed equally viable.
|
|
|
