|
10 months ago ::
Aug 20, 2012 - 2:53PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Feb 26, 2002
|
One thing I did enjoy out of 4e. The Fighter and other melee characters had something more to do than, I attack such and such. And they had abilities that put them comparable to Wizards and other casters. Now longer playing a sword and shield warrior you felt like just a meat shield.
Even with the tweeks to the Fighter it seems the Fighter and melee has fallen back to that old secondary, and dull role again.
Especially in games level 10 or higher in older editions, playing a Fighter you really end up essentially being relgated to what is almost a henchman type role compared to the players who role Wizards or clerics.
D&D Next still seems to be a reversion to that position for melee characters. And that isn't an improvement, that is a negative.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 20, 2012 - 2:55PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2007
|
One thing I did enjoy out of 4e. The Fighter and other melee characters had something more to do than, I attack such and such. And they had abilities that put them comparable to Wizards and other casters. Now longer playing a sword and shield warrior you felt like just a meat shield.
Even with the tweeks to the Fighter it seems the Fighter and melee has fallen back to that old secondary, and dull role again.
Especially in games level 10 or higher in older editions, playing a Fighter you really end up essentially being relgated to what is almost a henchman type role compared to the players who role Wizards or clerics.
D&D Next still seems to be a reversion to that position for melee characters. And that isn't an improvement, that is a negative.
Oddly enough, you're going to get alot of people who like this basic attack style. As I agree with you, I'll let them explain their positions on it.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 20, 2012 - 3:58PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Feb 26, 2002
|
Oddly enough, you're going to get alot of people who like this basic attack style. As I agree with you, I'll let them explain their positions on it.
There is nothing wrong with a basic default core attack. But it is so vanilla, even with the very few, abilities they do give that it is a huge reversion back to the mistakes of the older editions.
I don't want every single attak defined. But there needs to be a lot more to them than this, or they will once again fall back to that secondary role as levels go up like in the older editions.
Seems they are trying too hard to go back to the older editions, they have forgotten or ignored the problems with the older editions that the newer ones changed or improved.
4e was the only edition where playing Fighter I felt at any level my character was as important or powerful as everyone elses. That there was more to the character than, 'I swing my weapon at X."
And now were going back to that it seems. 
Thanks though. Glad I'm not the only one that feels this way.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 20, 2012 - 4:20PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
The fighter will be much more than that with all of the options for Combat Superiority and Improvisation. At first level, a fighter can attack and add damage or parry to gain DR. That's choice. The fighter can do anything he can think of using improv. He can tip over stuff...throw stuff...try to grab and throw a creature, try to hold a creature so it can't move, try to push a creature off a ledge, he can aid someone in another action, he can Dodge instead of attacking, not to mention some of the specialties like protecting an ally, firing an arrow with the possibliity to completely negate cover, etc.
For many players, all fighters did in 4e was attack. 4e just gave them 3 or 4 buttons to press to make a slightly different kind of attack. In 5e, there are still buttons to press, but there is also the idea that a fighter is not bound or limited by the buttons. So far in the playtest, I've found that it is easier for me to encourage my players to think out of the box, and more like their characters, and using attribute rolls, skill rolls, abilities, attack rolls, all flows fluidly to help me allow them to do what they want to do.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 20, 2012 - 4:29PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2012
|
Isn't that the point of CS? I can totally see so much fun and flexibility coming out of the CS system. Just needs more added to it I think.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 20, 2012 - 4:42PM
#6
|
|
|
My last game the Fighter choked an Orc to death with a chain to keep him from calling for help. Later he threw the halfling rogue as an attack. That's not including CS, which he also enjoyed. Maybe the problem is that he's married to his weapon. The Fighter is to using things to cause damage as the Rogue is to skills. Try disarming him for a bit and see if he doesn't get more creative.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 12:35AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
Isn't that the point of CS? I can totally see so much fun and flexibility coming out of the CS system. Just needs more added to it I think.
This issue with the CS system is that it's 'all spelled out', meaning a lot of people will fall into the same trap that a lot of 4e players fall into. "If it's not on the character sheet, then it's not possible to do." Even with the 'improvisation' ability in the playtest, you will find that a lot of players will instinctively not look at anything other than their sheet.
Personally, on my next playtest I want to try allowing all the players to use the CS stuff, but they roll at Disadvantage, except when you actually HAVE the ability.
Level 2 Fighter or Rogue wants to Cleave? SURE! But you get Disadvantage on it. Level 3 Slayer Fighter wants to Cleave? Roll as normal.
Not to mention allowing 'Improvisation' to do DAMAGE. You want your Rogue to garrotte the Goblin Guard with his own belt (yay pick pocket!) so he doesn't scream an alarm? (BREE-YARK!) Go for it, I'll even allow Sneak Attack on it.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 5:57AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2012
|
Isn't that the point of CS? I can totally see so much fun and flexibility coming out of the CS system. Just needs more added to it I think.
This issue with the CS system is that it's 'all spelled out', meaning a lot of people will fall into the same trap that a lot of 4e players fall into. "If it's not on the character sheet, then it's not possible to do." Even with the 'improvisation' ability in the playtest, you will find that a lot of players will instinctively not look at anything other than their sheet.
Personally, on my next playtest I want to try allowing all the players to use the CS stuff, but they roll at Disadvantage, except when you actually HAVE the ability.
Level 2 Fighter or Rogue wants to Cleave? SURE! But you get Disadvantage on it. Level 3 Slayer Fighter wants to Cleave? Roll as normal.
Not to mention allowing 'Improvisation' to do DAMAGE. You want your Rogue to garrotte the Goblin Guard with his own belt (yay pick pocket!) so he doesn't scream an alarm? (BREE-YARK!) Go for it, I'll even allow Sneak Attack on it.
Sounds interesting. I like it. I'm always a big proponent of letting people use their imagination. Limiting to what you see on paper can get boring.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 6:16AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2004
|
The thing that gets me is that people tout Improvisation as the answer to the Fighter's boringness....but any class can improvise. So, how does that solve the Fighter's boringness again? If, ya know, everybody can do it....
Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade." "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, "But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling Defenders: We ARE the wall! I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D. Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e! I am a hero, not a chump.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 7:33AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2006
|
Improvisation is what we are play testing in this this iteration. So why not use it. In the next packet we will get the narrative modular to test everyone having access to maneuvers. At that point we will be testing that style of play. And then we will test the tactical module and that style of play. Trying to make one of these into the others because you personally don't want to play the style that is presented is not really helpful to the whole?
No single way to play is going to be right or fun for everyone, but that is one of the great things about 5th! It's going to be modular, so you can add those options. but they should still remain options so that others can play the way they want as well.
So bane we are testing the theatre of the mind play style and not the narrative play style we should all try to use our improvisational skills to give it a chance. Who knows when you stop trying to make it into something it's not supposed to be you may find, like many of us, that there is a fun game to be found.
Improvise and shake off the shackles of 8 years of playing in a fully codified system, and give it a spin. If its not for you then give the narrative modular a spin, but don't try to make theI theatre of the mindmules into the narrative module.
It's a sad state of affairs when DMs measure their success in total party kills and players in the damage they deal.
Red
|
|
|
