|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 1:39AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
I wonder if they're filtering out the huge pile of profanity assured to appear in the form fields.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 3:50AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
I screwed up. I voted for the Cleric and Fighter were better than the Rogue and Wizard. Suggested the Wizard was almost there, make it 3 spells per level not 2 and PCs choice on at wills and signature spells. That means they will nerf the fighter into the ground. Also told them most of the fighter manuveurs are average and that glancing blow is terrible.
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 ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 3:52AM
#13
|
|
|
Zard: I actually voted the same, mostly because it's true. I also stressed in the comments that what was too strong was the Fighter's damage relative to the damage of others (stemming mostly from the bonus attack), and what it needed was more options that were useful, not more damage. I hit the 500 word cap in like 3 or 4 sections.
By the way, I completely blame this topic for me being tired this morning. I found it just as I was about to go to bed, and wound up staying up another two hours filling out the survey.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 3:55AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
I think the Rogue and Cleric are almost complete as concepts. SOme of the fighter manuveurs need some work along with the domains but they done a good job I thought. Might wanna add parry back as a standard feature as every fighter with half a brain is going to pick a style that gets it.
ALso pointed out bounded accuracy doesn't work with ED. Not just skills but saves as well. Fighter will be semi immune to save or suck type spells like 2nd ed which I'm fine with but everyone else is boned. I can't see save or suck spells being a major problem if they only work 10% of the time or less. Stupid web spell.
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 ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 6:39AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
I mostly moaned about spells. I just hate how they don't scale and I hate the "max hp over X = doesn't work" mechanic they're tenaciously clinging to.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 6:54AM
#16
|
|
|
I mostly moaned about spells. I just hate how they don't scale and I hate the "max hp over X = doesn't work" mechanic they're tenaciously clinging to.
Good. I was getting tired by the time I got to spells so didn't spend much time there. Basically harped on about the few that seem out of line a glance, and ignored them for the most part.
ALso pointed out bounded accuracy doesn't work with ED. Not just skills but saves as well. Fighter will be semi immune to save or suck type spells like 2nd ed which I'm fine with but everyone else is boned. I can't see save or suck spells being a major problem if they only work 10% of the time or less. Stupid web spell.
Frankly, Bounded Accuracy doesn't work for skills in general. A major point I elaborated on was that Skills should never have been applied to bounded accuracy in the first place. In combat, the lack of numerical scaling is made up for by hp/damage. With skills, you don't get that. So you either have the problem of high level characters can't do much more than low level characters, and thus only spellcasters contribute out of combat at high levels, or you give skills uses that can compete with spellcasting, and skills are overpowered at low levels.
As for saving throws, given the extreme limitation on maneuvers currently, spending a maneuver to be able to give up damage to gain a bonus to a saving throw is honestly weak. If the Fighter got all 3 saving throw boosters for free, and could use it without giving up expertise dice, it'd be overpowered. As it is, getting a bonus to saves in exchange for damage or other effects is honestly on the weak end of what maneuvers should be doing, and is hardly worth a slot in your extremely limited maneuver selection.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 7:17AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Oct 23, 2012
|
My comments, short and sweet.
• Fix Rogue, Ed is okay but needs better manuevers and different mechanic for getting and using ED to make rogues more unique. Rogue schemes don't impact character feel as effectively as fighter styles, cleric deities, and wizard traditions do.
• Some manuevers are either pointless or broken
• Skill mastery is broken, lame, and breaks Bounded accuracy
• Traditions are great but need just a little bit more individuality
• Too many pointless and redundant skills
• Keep specialties flavourful and feeding Exploration pillar
Those were my only negative comments. Everything else I was highly positive about, and made sure they knew it!
Unfortunately no place to comment about the racial imablance....
My mind is a deal-breaker.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 9:27AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2008
|
I kind of gave most of the survey a cursory glance except for the section on specialities, were I really let them know how thoroughly dissatisfied I was with them. I'm hoping that we get enough people echoing my comments, because I know I'm far from the only person who feels this way.
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 ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 11:25AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2012
|
My gripes were the too similar to the Fighter that is Rogue, the messy/scattered Wizard, Monster accuracy (bring back the generic +2 bonus from the 1st playtest packet, the best one so far), Disarm, Disengage, and trepidations about manoeuvres (bloat, Expertise dice getting gimmicky).
Aside from that (basically, classes), I am seriously digging 5th Ed.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 12:06PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
My gripes were the too similar to the Fighter that is Rogue, the messy/scattered Wizard, Monster accuracy (bring back the generic +2 bonus from the 1st playtest packet, the best one so far), Disarm, Disengage, and trepidations about manoeuvres (bloat, Expertise dice getting gimmicky).
Aside from that (basically, classes), I am seriously digging 5th Ed.
Yeah, I agree. My survey can easily be summed up with "Classes need a LOT of work, Monsters need a bit of a push, and everything else is awesome."
|
|
|
