|
8 months ago ::
Oct 13, 2012 - 1:04PM
#81
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2006
|
Regarding the comment about not needing 6E:
According to the quotes above, Mearls said the players don't need a 6E.
He's right.
Quite a lot of us don't need a 5E. So why are we getting one?
A good share of us don't need a 4E. So why do we have one?
Some of us don't even need a 3E. So why do we have one?
Answer: WotC needs a 5E, because in any given year there are more people who have already played D&D and will buy a fairly-new edition at least to have a look at it than there are people who have never played D&D and will buy the existing edition. Eventually (unless Hasbro stuffs the brand in a drawer and leaves it there) the current brand owner will need a 6E, for the same reason.
So, WotC needs to make 5E enticing enough that we regular players will buy it, and preferably more than just the basic books. Then, eventually, someone will need to do the same with 6E.
WotC also learned, especially with 4E, that a new edition creates a risk of breaking the base, with a consequent loss of profits. For this reason, if for no other, I can actually believe Mearls when he says he doesn't want to need a new edition five years down the line. I wouldn't want to roll the dice like that any more than I could help it.
Optimally, I think D&D should update itself in the manner of 4E's Essentials line: revisit the basic classes with the benefit of more experience designing for the system, but presenting them as options, keeping the system itself the same and everything remaining compatible.
What DDN has, that 4E lacked, was a strong playtest platform where the design philosophies were shared with the community and got feedback in return. I think a LOT of people were thrown off by 4E's direction and look, espically when the speculations were more of the mindset that it would look more like a Book of 9 Swords + Star Wars: Saga elements thrown in. Additionally, I don't think 4E was playtested enough or given the time it truely needed to be a great RPG system right out of the gate (eventually, it did become that but by then it was too late).
Also, with Esssentials I think that was how it was done with 4E. That these are just additional options that could be used alongside the original supplemental stuff. A Slayer plays find next to a Swordsage and an Assassin with a Hunter all rolled into a party. But revisiting the game a few years down the line isn't a bad idea so long as the elements SUPPORT the existing ruleset, not override it (like 3.5)
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 13, 2012 - 4:38PM
#82
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
It seems reasonably likely that 5e will have bloat as there are already 12 2nd level spells available for Wizards in just the playtest as an example and Wizards in 4e had a total of 18 3rd level encounter spells period after all the 'bloat'.
Even going back to the Lightning Reflexes example, 5E already has bloat because there are two different ways to intervene between a monster attacking your ally: the specialty feat where your spend your reaction to cause disadvantage on the attack roll, and the fighter ability to spend expertise dice and reduce the damage your ally takes from a successful attack.
A tank-type character who doesn't take both of those options is going to feel as though she is failing at her intended role.
The bloat is already here. Now we need to convince them to get rid of it.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 13, 2012 - 5:02PM
#83
|
|
|
Regarding the comment about not needing 6E:
According to the quotes above, Mearls said the players don't need a 6E.
He's right.
Quite a lot of us don't need a 5E. So why are we getting one?
A good share of us don't need a 4E. So why do we have one?
Some of us don't even need a 3E. So why do we have one?
Answer: WotC needs a 5E, because in any given year there are more people who have already played D&D and will buy a fairly-new edition at least to have a look at it than there are people who have never played D&D and will buy the existing edition. Eventually (unless Hasbro stuffs the brand in a drawer and leaves it there) the current brand owner will need a 6E, for the same reason.
So, WotC needs to make 5E enticing enough that we regular players will buy it, and preferably more than just the basic books. Then, eventually, someone will need to do the same with 6E.
WotC also learned, especially with 4E, that a new edition creates a risk of breaking the base, with a consequent loss of profits. For this reason, if for no other, I can actually believe Mearls when he says he doesn't want to need a new edition five years down the line. I wouldn't want to roll the dice like that any more than I could help it.
Optimally, I think D&D should update itself in the manner of 4E's Essentials line: revisit the basic classes with the benefit of more experience designing for the system, but presenting them as options, keeping the system itself the same and everything remaining compatible.
Why does everyone think 4E is the only reason they lost money. It couldn't have anything to do with their bad business sense or their horrid customer service could it?
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 13, 2012 - 5:25PM
#84
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2006
|
@ Saelorn: The fighter that takes both the Guardian specialty and Protect is actually gimping themselves. Both the Defender feat and Protect maneuver require a reaction. Imposing Disadvantage on an attack is just outright better than reducing damage from an already successful attack. Now, if they make fighter's maneuvers all independent from Reactions, then it makes both options awesome AND useful at the same time. But then it doesn't make it redundant or bloat because is synergistic.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 13, 2012 - 5:43PM
#85
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
Imposing Disadvantage on an attack is just outright better than reducing damage from an already successful attack.
In the situation where your ally is going to be attacked by at least two enemies, especially if those attackers are less-than-accurate to begin with, reducing (possibly negating) damage from the one attack that gets through is a better use than penalizing the attack roll of one enemy who was probably going to miss anyway. The reverse is true if you have one big enemy, where there's no choice between which attack to defend against and the damage from that attack is likely going to be much greater than the amount you could prevent.
It's situational enough that you really need both in order to feel effective.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 13, 2012 - 6:48PM
#86
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
It's situational enough that you really need both in order to feel effective.
... Maybe for some people, sure, but I know I would "feel effective" with one or the other.
I'd like to see it changed so that both mechanics match anyways - but that's just because I like consistency. And because a "Fighter-lite" specialty (like the Magic User and Acolyte specialties are Wizard- and Cleric-lite, respectively) probably should let anyone pick up the Fighter version anyways.
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
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 13, 2012 - 6:52PM
#87
|
|
|
Why does everyone think 4E is the only reason they lost money. It couldn't have anything to do with their bad business sense or their horrid customer service could it?
I don't believe I ever made the claim that 4E was the only reason they lost money. Unless you want to argue that splitting the customer base is actually profitable somehow, I don't see how what you're saying is relevant.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 13, 2012 - 7:03PM
#88
|
|
|
Why does everyone think 4E is the only reason they lost money. It couldn't have anything to do with their bad business sense or their horrid customer service could it?
I don't believe I ever made the claim that 4E was the only reason they lost money. Unless you want to argue that splitting the customer base is actually profitable somehow, I don't see how what you're saying is relevant.
Did they split because of 4E itself or because of their business practices. For instance they supposedly had best seller list books right up until Essentials came out and then the whole line tanked. Remember they made a bunch of decisions right around that point in time that had nothing to do with 4E or Essentials that many felt alienated them...
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 13, 2012 - 7:05PM
#89
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2010
|
They also lose money because they decide not to launch D&D outside of USA, Canada and UK...It's kinda stupid not to release a product with global financial expectations in a very small portion of the world, where it compete with alot of diferent means of entertainment.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 13, 2012 - 7:19PM
#90
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
I'd like to see it changed so that both mechanics match anyways - but that's just because I like consistency. And because a "Fighter-lite" specialty (like the Magic User and Acolyte specialties are Wizard- and Cleric-lite, respectively) probably should let anyone pick up the Fighter version anyways.
That would go a long way toward making me more comfortable with the situation and keeping in-check what I see as bloat.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
