|
7 months ago ::
Oct 29, 2012 - 6:59PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2008
|
I was a huge, huge fan of packet two and the direction they were taking specialities, and now that I see packet three, I'm disappointed.
Specialities and feats have taken a huge step backwards. They've gone from being really flavourful in-universe concepts to minor boosts to your character. In packet two, the idea of making a Rogue with the Magic-User speciality was exciting and created interesting story hooks. In packet three, the Arcane Magic speciality is pretty much useless to a Rogue, and all the exciting ideas that were possible before are gone.
In fact, that's another one of my complaints when it comes to specialities. Gone are evocative names like "Jack-of-all-trades" or "Survivor" or "Acolyte". Instead, we have "Skill Specialist", "Endurance Specialist", and "Divine Magic Specialist." No longer do I feel like I'm further defining my character's role in the world. Now I feel like I'm just making the "better" at something.
And the loss of this "flavour first" focus that the old specialities had makes me worried that now they've opened the gate to feat bloat again. Now you barely need any flavour justification to make a bunch of feats, so they can crank out more of them.
D&D Experience Level: Relatively new First Edition: 4th Known Editions: 4th, 3.5 --- Magic Experience Level: Fairly skilled First Expansion: 7th Edition Play Style: Very Casual
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 29, 2012 - 7:04PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Oct 27, 2012
|
Whole heatedly agreed. I sincerely hope this is "low power" test just for grins on wizards' part. Cuz from what I've read it is just awful...granted I haven't read it all and I'll revise if I see some interesting things.
Just sad cuz the last packet was just soooo awesome and this one is beyond poor (so far).
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 29, 2012 - 7:08PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jul 25, 2003
|
And the thing is, the specialties in packet two weren't even really powerful (with the glaring exception of Guardian and maybe Healer), but they were flexible and flavorful enough that they were interesting despite the fact that there was nary a damage bonus to be had.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 29, 2012 - 7:09PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
They got rid of defneder because it was broken.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 29, 2012 - 7:18PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
They got rid of defneder because it was broken.
Broken and redundant when using protector expertise dice.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 29, 2012 - 7:30PM
#6
|
|
|
I miss the flavor and the changes to Magic-User and Acolyte. I mean "Divine Magic Specialty" is cool and it grants more healing but they've changed them from light multiclass specialties too... kind of bland. The new magic-user is pretty much just for wizards and the new acolyte is only the healing side of divine magic.
That said most of the specialties are mechanically more usable for the most part.
Still they were my favorite part last packet and I am a little let down this go around.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 29, 2012 - 7:32PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
They got rid of defneder because it was broken.
Broken and redundant when using protector expertise dice.
It wasn't redundent though as it stacked with protector. My entire party took it except for the rogue. She would have taken it as well if he could have used shields.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 29, 2012 - 7:39PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
These "specialties" are a massive, massive disappointment, and nearly a complete divergence from the aspects of "Themes" that were actually exciting and interesting.
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
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 29, 2012 - 7:44PM
#9
|
|
|
The names are terrible. I imagine they wanted to make them less of something you added as an adjective to your character and more a pre-built package of feats.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? Spoiler:
Show
My Webcomic

Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 29, 2012 - 7:45PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
These are one of the parts of this packet where I... just don't get the changes.
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
|
|
|