|
11 months ago ::
Aug 17, 2012 - 12:33PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2008
|
Perhaps it's the playtest layout that is heavily influencing me, but after seeing the class features that are built into the fighter (I know, I know it was too boring before), and after reading the Warlock and Sorcerer, this doesn't really seem like a system that is going to any easier for beginners to grasp than previous editions--perhaps excluding 3.5. What are your thoughts, does the layout just need to be cleaned up or is a lot of the modularity coming in pre-baked?
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 17, 2012 - 12:49PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2008
|
You think this is complex? You should read the rules on combat and magic for 3.5/Pathfinder, it is a rules cragmire.
That being said The topics you mentioned will probably be better defined in the final version of D&D.
When I have new players I just have them tell me (describe) what their character is doing, they don't need to know all the rules like you do. The rules knowledge can come later.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 17, 2012 - 1:20PM
#3
|
|
|
The problem is, when the designers say “simpler”, they dont actually mean simpler. It is just a euphamism when they really mean “more like 1e”.
Therefore it is actually impossible the designers would meaningfully simplify rules, such as eliminating scores and just using modifiers. Or even using defenses rather than saves. 1e has some crazy convoluted rules. And so on.
It is what it is. I hope the goal to reunify the D&D fanbase succeeds. Worst comes to worst, we will have an interesting edition.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 17, 2012 - 2:34PM
#4
|
|
|
Anyone saying that the current rules look -anything- like 1E is just talking hyperbole...or knows nothing about 1E. Probably both.
Yes, 1E had a -lot- of fiddly arcane rules. There was a reason for (almost) all of them, but much of that reasoning has been lost to the minutae of hobby wargaming. The current packet has -nothing- on 1E. It has a small (and shrinking) bit on 2E, which actually -did- simplify the rules.
Removing stats is not simplifying the rules, it's removing numbers. That you don't like those numbers is irrelevant to whether or not it is simplification.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 17, 2012 - 2:51PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2010
|
...after reading the Warlock and Sorcerer...
May I ask where these rules were found? They're not part of the packet, yeah?
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 17, 2012 - 2:52PM
#6
|
|
|
...after reading the Warlock and Sorcerer...
May I ask where these rules were found? They're not part of the packet, yeah?
The packet was updated with an adventure and the lock/sorc. Redownload and enjoy. 
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 17, 2012 - 3:01PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2004
|
I will say they got WAY too fluff heavy with the Warlock. Even the fighter manages to fill only three pages to the Warlock's four despite having more mechanics to cover, while the Sorcerer at least has the excuse of having several extra lists in their class section.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 17, 2012 - 3:34PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2008
|
Perhaps it's the playtest layout that is heavily influencing me, but after seeing the class features that are built into the fighter (I know, I know it was too boring before), and after reading the Warlock and Sorcerer, this doesn't really seem like a system that is going to any easier for beginners to grasp than previous editions--perhaps excluding 3.5. What are your thoughts, does the layout just need to be cleaned up or is a lot of the modularity coming in pre-baked?
They're actually quite simple, not sure where the complexity your seeing is. The weapon classes are all fairly straightforward, "go hit enemy, go hit enemy". The fighter gets a couple maneuvers to do like tripping and such that are straightforward, and the combat superiority bonus die is all pretty simple. The rogue basically with spend a round getting CA, then use sneak attack, spend a round get CA, then use sneak attack for the most part. As for the new sorcerer & warlock their abilities are clear as day and straightforward, it's a cake walk.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 17, 2012 - 3:45PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2008
|
I've gone back and looked and I agree with those that are disagreeing with me. I think the layout is just really throwing me off.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 17, 2012 - 4:02PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2009
|
I've gone back and looked and I agree with those that are disagreeing with me. I think the layout is just really throwing me off.
This is really the thing when it comes to new payers - presentation. The playtest is basic and functional, but not a lot of effort has gone into the presntation. That will come later (probably much later, given Mike's "two years of playtesting" comment last night).
|
|
|
