|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 11:22PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
I also want to echo Trevor and Jeremy and tell Mike good job and thanks for the spoiler of next week, we will have two Legends & Lore articles and a little surprise apparently! (53:28) 
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 11:42PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2010
|
Man, i'm starting to feel like i need to start stepping up and letting people know not all 4E fans are angry, raging fanboys who feel like their puppy just got kicked and thier favorite toy taken from them.
This.
I was a 4E fan. I'm pretty sure I am soon going to change that label to 'Next fan.'
A lot of good things are happening... And I feel like 4e shines through in various ways... Maneuvers are a good example of this - sure, the fighter doesn't have encounter or daily powers, but it has a real choice, and some really good options. I am sure the rogue will soon start to feel like this as well.
The Warlock, when we saw it, was also very 4e, and this Wizard 'recharge' spell system sounds very 4e as well.
There are a lot of things in here which have been adapted from 4e in a reasonable way that works with the system... And I am interested to see how much further that it will go.
We're not all angry fanboys :D
More Relevant to the Hangout:
Although there was a lot of anger at the start, I like the way that they are stress testing the system.
Also, really intrigued by the 2 Legends and Lore articles next week... I wonder what they have waiting for us...
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 10, 2012 - 12:20AM
#53
|
|
|
I really hate at 21:30 to 22:00, where it's basically stated "If we can make CoDzilla awesome with less spells, that's a victory for us."
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 10, 2012 - 12:46AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
So, I am not entirely thrilled about their discussion of the Warlord. While they do seem to be entertaining the idea of the Warlord being a separate class, they still seem to be thinking it can just be a part of the Fighter. Thing is, the same logic they are applying could be applied to the Rogue, Monk, and Ranger. As for not having an iconic Warlord, that was their mistake in 4E, they could have fixed it then, but now they can't. Instead, they seem to be using that mistake (in all honesty, there were not any iconics in 4E until Heroes of the Feywild) to inform their decisions regarding the Warlord. Want an iconic Warlord from D&D, look at Tanis Half-Elven, iconic Resourceful Warlord.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 10, 2012 - 5:33AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Jun 13, 2010
|
One concern about the Skill list going back to some kind of a proficiency list. Jeremy almost said it.
The proficiencies being so specific works in a very distinct way compared to Skills, you can´t have a fixed list of "extremely specific and focused things" because so many other things are going to qualify as well. That was what happened in 2E, you started to have so many proficiencies, and the rule of thumb was you are not capable of doing stuff unless you are proficient in it. Ride a horse? have a proficiency? no, so usually you can't, or can you try, fall miserably all the time. Examples are endless... Usually as more and more proficiencies appeared in splatbooks, less competent your existing character became. The skills system solved this with a fixed list, I always believed that was the reason they created the skills system in the first place, social skills became backgrounds in 4E and so on...
Jeremy I guess that´s the reason people are thinking it this way. Actually we are used to the Skill system and not the old proficiency system anymore. IMO the Skill system, with skill checks works so much better.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 10, 2012 - 5:56AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
One concern about the Skill list going back to some kind of a proficiency list. Jeremy almost said it.
The proficiencies being so specific works in a very distinct way compared to Skills, you can´t have a fixed list of "extremely specific and focused things" because so many other things are going to qualify as well. That was what happened in 2E, you started to have so many proficiencies, and the rule of thumb was you are not capable of doing stuff unless you are proficient in it. Ride a horse? have a proficiency? no, so usually you can't, or can you try, fall miserably all the time. Examples are endless... Usually as more and more proficiencies appeared in splatbooks, less competent your existing character became. The skills system solved this with a fixed list, I always believed that was the reason they created the skills system in the first place, social skills became backgrounds in 4E and so on...
Jeremy I guess that´s the reason people are thinking it this way. Actually we are used to the Skill system and not the old proficiency system anymore. IMO the Skill system, with skill checks works so much better.
Actually I think it is the oposite.
I belevie the current issue is that we don't have a list of extremely specific and focused things.
We currently have a list of extremely specific and focused things with a few broad and general things.
You can mix Sneak with Use Rope. Sneak is more general and less restrictive, thus the player can work the situation into using the skill.
What needs to be done first is seperate the list into general skills and specific proficiencies.
Then limit the character's ability to cover a lout of situation with their skills and proficiences.
If you use general skills like Sneak and Persuade, then a background should only give 2 skills.
If you use narrow skills like Move Silently and Intimidate, then background should only give 4 skills
By limiting the versatility of skills, nonskill classes will be force into ability checks so often than they will be not be able to afford to see themselves as unable.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 10, 2012 - 9:38AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2004
|
Why not ignore the specific skills and create domains of competences ?
You take the Disguise domain of competence, you become able to make any ability checks related to disguise : Bluff, make up, mimic voices, forge ID documents, study a person gestures and behavior, and so on.
The infiltration domain of competences would allow any ability check about open lock, find/remove trap, stealth, climb, or else whithin the sepcific goal of infiltrating a place. If you want to be stealthy in natural surrounding, you would need the specific knowledge from Survival domain of competence, because being stealthy in a city doesn't requires the same training as being stealthy in a forest, where you have to take care about leaves or animals that can give give awayy our presence.
Anyone could make checks outside their domains of competences with disadvantage.
No need for skill points, and some feats or features could grant advantage on certain types of checks concerning one or more domains of competences, like Stealth of Bluff.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion
"Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe
"In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer
"Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition.
"you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 10, 2012 - 9:44AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
We've been over this several times. If 5E doesn't get all the fans from every edition as well as pathfinder and new players, then Hasbro/Disney shelves it.
Then it's going to get shelved.
No single edition of D&D has ever or will ever get every fan, including fans of another game from another company. Those ambitions are commendable, but non-realistic. It can't happen. It won't happen. Every edition gains fans and loses others. If someone is perfectly happy with Pathfinder, 4E, or whatever game they choose, they likely won't switch to 5E. It's a lofty goal that simply won't happen. Anyone thinking otherwise is deluding themselves.
In fond memory of Mark "Wrecan" Monack.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 10, 2012 - 10:15AM
#59
|
|
|
Man, i'm starting to feel like i need to start stepping up and letting people know not all 4E fans are angry, raging fanboys who feel like their puppy just got kicked and thier favorite toy taken from them.
I'm a 4E fan, started with 3.5 but definatly prefer Fourth.
I also have to say i'm really happy to see this Google+ hangout video. It answered alot of my questions for sure and showed that they are paying more attention then i was already convinced they were. I don't have to agree with every design philosophy when i know they are actually trying their best to make something fun for as many people as humanly possible. (I stress that word because it seems too many people don't remember that Mearls and co. are humans, not perfect, divine beings sent down by Nuffle, the patron god of random number generation and by proxy dice based games.)
I don't really know if i can say there is much about this interview that really rubbed me wrong, my biggest problem with the game now is i want to see more examples of everything, to get a better idea of where they want to take their ideas and how they want to evolve them. But i know full well i need to wait for that, i can't have a tactical module, a silver-standard economy, and fixed magic items/equipment listings all in the next packet. Especially if i also want fixed Monster Math, changes to the rogue, cleric, and wizard.
Its all about being reasonable, express dislike but don't decide that the world, or Nuffle, is out to get you because your not the focus of DnDN at the moment.
Sorry, I don't buy that you are a 4E fan with a response like that. You can be polite, but if you aren't offended by the lack of 4E play style in 5E, you are just not a fan...
Ha! That made me lol. Lokiare I disagree with you some times but you can shoot out the funny enough that I don't care. Keep it up! 
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 10, 2012 - 10:27AM
#60
|
|
|
Man, i'm starting to feel like i need to start stepping up and letting people know not all 4E fans are angry, raging fanboys who feel like their puppy just got kicked and thier favorite toy taken from them.
This.
I was a 4E fan. I'm pretty sure I am soon going to change that label to 'Next fan.'
A lot of good things are happening... And I feel like 4e shines through in various ways... Maneuvers are a good example of this - sure, the fighter doesn't have encounter or daily powers, but it has a real choice, and some really good options. I am sure the rogue will soon start to feel like this as well.
The Warlock, when we saw it, was also very 4e, and this Wizard 'recharge' spell system sounds very 4e as well.
There are a lot of things in here which have been adapted from 4e in a reasonable way that works with the system... And I am interested to see how much further that it will go.
We're not all angry fanboys :D
More Relevant to the Hangout:
Although there was a lot of anger at the start, I like the way that they are stress testing the system.
Also, really intrigued by the 2 Legends and Lore articles next week... I wonder what they have waiting for us...
I'm glad you guys are saying stuff. We are well of aware of the feelings of certain posters on this board in regards to certain editions. It would be nice to see other opinions. There are some posters on here who certain editions but don't harp about it constantly. The more variety of specific edition players playing Next and posting feedback the better. Was that vague enough to avoid edition warring?
|
|
|
