|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 12:39PM
#121
|
|
|
well, i know i am in the minority, but i dont like expertise dice. at all. so for me, when new classes or class revisions come out and they have just slapped expertise dice onto it, it makes me not like the class. it also makes it look like they are out of ideas.
If you actually gave them a shot, you might like them. That you think that it's just slapped on for the monk and they're out of ideas demonstrates that you don't have a clue how expertise work or why they're used.
right, bc the only way someone could ever disagree with you is because they are ignorant, and cant understand how expertise dice work. i cant believe that you have the nerve to insult me like that.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 12:41PM
#122
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
Yes, the "expertise mechanic" is interesting (and simple) enough that it could be used for every single class - that still doesn't mean I'm excited to see it used on every single class (that isn't a spellcaster). Honestly, maybe I'd be more excited if it was used on every single class, instead of "every single class (but not spellcasters)". It'd be a simpler, and more consistent, game at least.
But, that pet peeve aside: Monk looks good, I guess? Alignment restrictions are still dumb (but ignorable). Ki stuff is weird to me, in that it doesn't interact with the expertise mechanic at all (and that just seems like such an obvious thing to do with it). Static class features are generally uninteresting immunities - not a problem, just not something I care for in the slightest.
EDIT: Honestly, "Expertise" is just looking (edit2) more and more like the 5e equivalent of 3e's "Full Base Attack Bonus + Bonus Feats". (edit2) But hey, the 3e Monk could have really used Full Base Attack Bonus and some bonus feats, so it's a good move here.
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 ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 12:41PM
#123
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2006
|
*shruggs* Out of all the changes to the games over the years and the talk about inclusiveness from the designers this time around, this was the #1 thing I won't budge on. Vancian, Spell points, maneuvers, attack progression, how saves are done, broken spells, etc.. are all elements I can swing pretty far and wide on in their relation to different editions of the game. But not this. I've had far too many problems with players and DMs that hinge on Alignment's inclusion and requirements in the game. If they come out with another packet with a non-lawful monk or a side bar saying "this is for flavor, ignore it at-will" then I'll continue. If not, I'll remain happy playing the games I currently have.
Do they really need to put in "please ignore anything you want; it's your game" again? They've already said - in the playtest materials no less, which is a far cry from a finished edition - to basically do so if it works for the group. Okay, yes, they said the DM runs the game, but in a practical sense, nobody in their right mind just goes all tyrannical (and keeps players long).
Can we not just figure that people are going to be smart enough to ignore things they don't like or get in the way of their fun? Does it need spelled out? Seriously?
You'd think so, but then again DMs feel far more vindicated when the rules justify their own personal beliefs that might impose requirments and prejudices on classes and characters instead of imposing it themselves. These sorts of DMs hide behind the rules saying "well I'd change it but we're playing RAW." or "That might imbalance the class" or "Then alignment means nothing and loses it's traction as a story-element of the game". Basically they pass off their own biased opinions on the supportive rules because they don't want to admit that they are being biased or come off as a jerk. Don't you think it says a lot when people don't want to impose restrictions even if it's what they believe?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 12:42PM
#124
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Yes, the "expertise mechanic" is interesting (and simple) enough that it could be used for every single class - that still doesn't mean I'm excited to see it used on every single class (that isn't a spellcaster). Honestly, maybe I'd be more excited if it was used on every single class, instead of "every single class (but not spellcasters)"
I hope they don't go that route, because I absolutely want to see a wholly at-will caster with an Expertise-like mechanics.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 12:43PM
#125
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2012
|
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conductPlease keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 12:43PM
#126
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2012
|
You'd think so, but then again DMs feel far more vindicated when the rules justify their own personal beliefs that might impose requirments and prejudices on classes and characters instead of imposing it themselves. These sorts of DMs hide behind the rules saying "well I'd change it but we're playing RAW." or "That might imbalance the class" or "Then alignment means nothing and loses it's traction as a story-element of the game". Basically they pass off their own biased opinions on the supportive rules because they don't want to admit that they are being biased or come off as a jerk. Don't you think it says a lot when people don't want to impose restrictions even if it's what they believe?
It tells me those people don't have the balls to be DM's, and are sitting on the wrong side of the screen.
For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon
@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 12:44PM
#127
|
|
|
It's easier to grant permission than impose restrictions. It's much easier to play by "the rules" and/or remove alignment restrictions than impose alignment restrictions. Adding restrictions can seem like DM fia; having them built-in gives DMs a shield to deflect blame.
Easily fixable. Have no baked in alignment restrictions and include the following sidebar.
Alignment-Restricted Classes
In some editions of the game, classes were limited to a specific alignment, or set of alignments. For instance, paladins might be required to be lawful good, barbarians and bards might be required to be non-lawful, monks might be required to be lawful, and druids may be required to be true neutral. A character whose alignment changed to an impermissible alignment would not be allowed to progress in that class, or may even be denied the abilities with that class.
While some feel that alignment restrictions are an unnecessary straitjacket dictating whow a character should be played, others feel it adds a roleplaying challenge and makes the game more colorful. As a gaming group, you should decide whether you want to impose any alignment restrictions on classes, and, if so, what those restrictions should be. In the end, choose whatever will be the most fun for your group.
You only have to include it once, not each time a class is written up. in the end, you'd probably save more space this way.
And I would totally accept that as well as a viable option.
Really, the fact that we're not seeing it as an option or point of discsussion screams "debate starter" to me. They likely picked the monk for two reasons:
1) Testing how expertise is accepted and works for a class that isn't purely martial.
2) Testing how alignment restrictions are accepted for classes other than the paladin.
But, of course, they're not going to actually come out and tell us that.
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 ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 12:46PM
#128
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
froth, why don't you like expertise dice?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 12:47PM
#129
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Yes, the "expertise mechanic" is interesting (and simple) enough that it could be used for every single class - that still doesn't mean I'm excited to see it used on every single class (that isn't a spellcaster). Honestly, maybe I'd be more excited if it was used on every single class, instead of "every single class (but not spellcasters)"
I hope they don't go that route, because I absolutely want to see a wholly at-will caster with an Expertise-like mechanics.
Hmm I was thinking such a thing would be useful for when we see the Swordmage or various gishyness
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 12:49PM
#130
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
Yes, the "expertise mechanic" is interesting (and simple) enough that it could be used for every single class - that still doesn't mean I'm excited to see it used on every single class (that isn't a spellcaster). Honestly, maybe I'd be more excited if it was used on every single class, instead of "every single class (but not spellcasters)". It'd be a simpler, and more consistent, game at least.
But, that pet peeve aside: Monk looks good, I guess? Alignment restrictions are still dumb (but ignorable). Ki stuff is weird to me, in that it doesn't interact with the expertise mechanic at all (and that just seems like such an obvious thing to do with it). Static class features are generally uninteresting immunities - not a problem, just not something I care for in the slightest.
EDIT: Honestly, "Expertise" is just looking like the 5e equivalent of 3e's "Full Base Attack Bonus + Bonus Feats".
I feel you on the intigration of expertise and the ki mechanic, but at the moment I think I understand why they didn't. In one word: Modularity. At the moment I could build a class all my own and give it some of these monk maneuvers on its list were the monk maneuvers integrated explicitly with the ki mechanic I wouldn't be able to do that.
That said I would love to see them in some way integrated. Possibly an even better way would be to give the monk the ability to build ki points with exp dice. something of an on your turn you may take an action make a check and then spend an expertise die to be able to roll it and gain half the rolled value as ki points. Then expand the usefulness of ki points a bit possibly allowing them to gain you bonus expertise dice. Kindof a take a turn to charge up and then be able to ruin some people the next turn, or run accross a lake in one turn. stuff like that. possibly make it one of the default "maneuvers" that only monks get/ I could give to other home brewed classes so that they can now integrate the ki points into maneuvers.
|
|
|
